Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 → Archive 65

14th Award goes to...

The Science Desk: ([1]) Congratulations - 2 in a row for Science. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this award before last week, but I can see why it was so warmly welcomed! I like. --Scray (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh - actually, it's bloody annoying and I wish Dweller would stop it. This is one person's opinion, cluttering up the desk with irrelevent and intrusive pictures of...spools of thread...possibly confusing our infrequently visiting OP's. It does nothing useful - it conveys nothing valuable - there isn't even a clear explanation of why it's awarded (eg Is it for good questions? Good answers? What?). If this were the collective consensus of a significant number of people - then maybe - but this is just one person's personal bias, unasked for and unneeded. The last spate of these were completely arbitary - typically missing great threads from earlier in the week-ish interval for those that happened to occur towards the end of the week when Dweller got around to thinking about it. This should either be properly considered and fairly awarded or censured. SteveBaker (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Geez, that sure is negative. I think the award itself is kind of fun. If you don't like the one spool of thread per week (at most), we can ask him to skip the pic, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one to flip easily and don't always agree with Steve, but I have a short history here and simply found the first two (I'd seen) a light distraction from some messy ugliness happening in parallel. Steve's points are well-taken, and I can now see why this won't be as diverting after a few more weeks. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Shows how clueless I am — I didn't realize that they were being flagged on the Desk itself. I thought that we were just getting the notification on the talk page here, where 'the regulars' could enjoy a warm fuzzy feeling. Perhaps an acknowledgment on this talk page along with a shrine somewhere in Dweller's userspace would be sufficient kudos? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the award. Yes, it is Dweller's personal opinion, but that is the informed opinion of an RD regular, and I am sure he would be open to considering suggestions or nominations left on his talk page. I see no need to turn this into a formal process. If Dweller is prepared to put his time and effort into this, then that is fine with me. How (or, indeed, whether) to mark the award-winning threads on the desks themselves is more open to debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, well stated. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Geesh and amazing, is there ever a freakin' thing that we don't need to argue about ?  :-( hydnjo (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that we argue about everything? Because I strongly dispute that. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I was just surprised at the controversy and expressed my surprise! -hydnjo (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Until I see proof that you were actually surprised, I will not accept your opinion about the matter. Do you have a diff that backs up your claim? -- kainaw™ 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well suppose all of us "regulars" go around sticking little 'awards' with pictures of who-knows-what all over everything on the RD that takes our random fancy? Would that be good? What about non-regulars? This is simply the random opinion of one person - it has no special validity of any kind whatever - there is no evidence that Dweller is any kind of a judge of threads (to the contrary - the picks we got the last time around were entirely not remotely the best threads IMHO). This behavior would rapidly be banned if lots of people did it - why this one? There is already an established 'barnstar' process for thanking individual contributors on their talk pages - and really only the OP can determine whether we passed on the information he or she needed. Who gives a damn what Dweller happens to think compared to what any of the rest of us think? This is self-aggrandizement - Dweller becomes the self-appointed judge of what is good - and that pisses me off. I plan to delete Dweller's additions whenever I find them on the RD pages - they are off-topic. If we really want something like this (and I really don't think we do) then we should do it properly - and fairly. Nominate threads here - and do a weekly vote or something. I'm not advocating that - but if we really must add this cruft - then let's at least do it right. SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay! group hug? --Scray (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh. Just gosh. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Until I see proof that you were actually surprised goshed, I will not accept your opinion about the matter. Do you have a diff that backs up your claim? -- kainaw™ 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) -hydnjo (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The vehemence of your criticism surprises me as well, Steve. Just so other readers know what we are talking about: User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. The page is worded in a tone of self-ironic ceremoniousness. On the corresponding talk page you will find voices of approval and encouragement. More of the same in the archives of Dweller's talk pages (11, 12, 13) and in the archives of this talk page.
I strongly disagree that posting spools at the desks is "cluttering them up" or "intrusive". The award could be linked to the user-subpage, to avoid confusion.
The if-everyone-did-that argument is based on an unlikely hypothesis. It is unlikely that everyone, or any significant percentage of editors will start posting their own awards. So far, not a single other editor has done this. Besides, what if everyone started removing "off-topic" stuff? What if everyone started removing stuff they felt was "bloody annoying". You get my drift.
I can accept that you see it differently, and from a wiki-formalistic point of view, your reasoning certainly has merit. Unlike featured content, the threads aren't selected by any form of consensus among multiple editors. That is, of course, also the whole point of the thread of the week. A subjective pick, "that I arbitrarily and quite unfairly, deem to be the best". I always saw these awards as an interesting selection, a welcome and anticipated surprise, as gesture of encouragement, something that builds community, something that doesn't take itself too seriously.
There's room for softer and less rigorous rules in metaspace, and we should be able to work stuff out on this talk page, addressing and discussing concerns, without insisting that one is right and removing harmless stuff that a lot of people enjoy. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What I find bloody annoying is the self-aggrandizing litany of opinion that often passes for "answers" on this, supposedly, reference desk. If everyone chose to offer their uninformed opinion on every single question, the place would be no different than Yahoo! Answers. Yet we still tolerate it from a small number of people who feel then need to tell us their personal take on everything under the sun. Given that, I see no reason to be intolerant of a Dweller's opinion. I see his award as a relatively unobtrusive, good natured contribution that is entirely in the Wiki-spirit. Leave him alone! Rockpocket 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I too find the awards instituted by Dweller to good-natured and (just like barnstars, which too are generally awarded without a "committee consensus") designed to highlight and encourage positive contributions to the reference desk. Of course, one is free to disagree with Dweller's choices, and if someone feels strongly about the issue, they can voice their dissent when the award is announced here.
I am neutral on the question of whether the award should be mentioned on the main reference page itself. On the one-hand the image is unobtrusive and unlikely to confuse the OPs, while perhaps catching the eye of lurkers and possibly encouraging broader participation; on the other hand, I can see the slippery slope argument that this could be a problem, if many editors decided to institute their own awards and marked up threads on the main refdesk pages.
To be honest, I think the whole issue of potential problems is overblown, and I would urge Dweller not to be discouraged by some of the comments on this thread. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk not a soapbox

I recommend that the thread on Humanities Reference Desk "what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done?" be removed. It is just an invitation to an exchange of attacks on the U.S. versus attacks on other countries in the world. It seems like trolling in effect whatever the intent of the questioner. This is not a blog for people to exchange their opinions, or state why they hate some other country. Every country has done some bad things as well as some good things. This is not "censorship," just an effort to keep the Reference Desk a Reference Desk and not a soapbox. Edison (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I though it was made clear just a few threads up that all you need to do is state "The consensus, as stated at the top of the RD, is that we do not provide answers to questions asking for opinions, so do not answer this questions." Once you do that, nobody will answer it, right? -- kainaw™ 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the proper "policy" is to just delete things you don't agree with—after all, if you don't like 'em why would anyone else? Note: this is an attempt at a humorous response to the above post, neither of which should be taken all that seriously. – 74  15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
One does not atone for one's past mistakes by expunging them. The United States (and probably every other country) has taken a number of actions that were controversial (and might still be), and which history has not cast in a favorable light. Asking for the "worst" isn't the best phrasing, but citing facts (and commonly-held beliefs) hardly qualifies as an attack. What distresses me more than the question is the number of people who feel that the Reference Desk is the proper place to debate whether a question is asking for debate on the Reference Desk. Discounting the inappropriate meta-discussion, there have been a handful of responses, none of which I (a citizen of the United States) find particularly offensive. – 74  15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is in asking for "the worst". If the OP asked something like, "What are three bad things the U.S. did in the past?", it would be an entirely different question. -- kainaw™ 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe they modified the Q to "what are some of the worst". I agree that the meta-discussion there is what was really annoying. Malcolm XIV seems to have a habit of initiating those with extremely nasty replies to both OPs and responders. I also think the meta-discussion below should be put into a collapsible box, as it's almost as annoying here as it was there. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how "three bad things" is different from "the worst things"—the former provides a concrete number, but "bad" is just as open to interpretation as "worst". The Reference Desks have previously answered several "worst" questions (human being, movie, prison conditions, food alergies, etc.); I see little to distinguish this case other than over-protective nationalism. – 74  16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
And it is just as I stated... Even though there is a blatant rule at the top of the RD stating that we will not do discussions or provider opinions, the statements telling people "Do not answer this" have been removed from the question to invite everyone to get into a discussion and give all the opinions they can muster up. That is why medical questions are removed - telling people to stop giving answers doesn't work. -- kainaw™ 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the excessive debate over this being a "soapboxing" question has been replaced with a clear warning not to provide personal opinion. Have you considered that part of the reason it "doesn't work" (which you have never actually established, I might note) is that you are unwilling to let it work? – 74  17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you claim you posted a warning not to provide personal opinion, but your "warning" is an invitation to provide as much personal opinion and discuss the topic at length as long as the opinion has some rare fact attributed to it. If you intended to warn people not to post opinions and start a debate, you failed - perhaps in an attempt to be too nice. Regardless, I seriously doubt you will take the time to reread your "warning" and take it literally, realizing that it is an invitation, not a warning. -- kainaw™ 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The text of my "warning":

Note: the Reference Desk is not a soapbox; respondents please confine your answers to facts and widely-held (and referenced) opinions. Uncivil comments and controversial statements unsupported by references may be removed. Meta-discussion regarding this question should be placed on the talk page.

The "not a soapbox" guideline, which I linked, contains the following: "Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources." Elsewhere, the guidelines state "The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate." and "Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate." Perhaps my text wasn't the most straightforward paraphrasing, but I believe it encompasses the spirit of the above guidelines. Your preferred version ("Please do not answer this question because it is clearly asking for opinions"), however, is unsupported by the current guidelines. – 74  14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't expect a casual user to click on the links, so I am only referring to your warning which I read as an invitation to carry on an opinionated debate. The key phrase is "Please confine your answers to facts." People have lots of opinions which they believe to be facts. They can go on and on about those opinions and fill a large discussion forum in a single day. A better phrase would be "Please confine your answers to widely-held, factual, and referenced opinions." By separating the invitation to toss around comments about facts from the restriction to only use widely-help opinions, I feel that you made two separate comments and the user can limit his or her concern only to ensuring the opinions has some ounce of fact to them. -- kainaw™ 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's my responsibility to compensate for users who erroneously believe their opinions are facts, but I find your rewording quite acceptable. Had you edited the warning with that (and an edit notice), or asked me to do the same, we could have avoided all this drama. Should the opportunity arise again, I will use your suggested phrasing. – 74  15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My experience is that when a person appears to take charge of altering content of a thread - such as removing meta content and placing a warning - that person is not open to having his or her warnings changed in any way. You are, apparently, an exception to the Wikipedia rule. Why not try to rub off on ToaT or StuRat? -- kainaw™ 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And now 74 gets to decide which "bad" things are "bad" and which are not? See here. -- kainaw™ 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Your post was Pointy. What is the basis of your complaint? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
He replaced the consensus that we don't give out opinions as a discussion forum with a brand new rule: Give all the opinions you like as long as they are facts. Every "bad" thing I listed is a fact. Are you claiming that Wikipedia, Google, and Microsoft are not products from within the US? The consensus used to be: We only provide answers to questions of fact, not questions of opinion. What is the "worst" thing is a matter of opinion. It always has in the past. I don't see why it will ever change. So, it is obvious that we suddenly do answer questions of opinion. How can you possibly argue differently without attempting to rationalize that "worst" means something other than someone's opinion? -- kainaw™ 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
First, consensus is not formed by debates on the Reference Desk. I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the question if that's what our decision is; I have a problem with a significant number of off-topic comments debating the merits of not answering the question and even chastising the OP for the number of off-topic comments debating the merits of not answering. This topic should have been broached here in the first place, with the "consensus" from that discussion applied to the original question. Second, you are conveniently ignoring the examples of other "worst" questions from the archives; and, if you expand it to include "best" questions (which are approximately equally subjective) then I suspect there are many more examples. Third, listing facts (opinions or otherwise) that are irrelevant to the question hardly constitutes a meaningful comment. I'm sorry my actions offended you, but *this* is the proper forum for a discussion, not the Reference Desk proper. – 74  20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure User:74.137.108.115 has any support whatsoever in this debate, and is as far away from having changed consensus as a person could hope to be. Consensus appears to remain that this in an opinion question with which we are not happy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, then surely we should now remove the question. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the question was that the word "worst" is ill-defined. If the OP had asked for "actions of the US that caused the most civilian casualties" or "actions of the US that resulted in complaints to the UN" or something concrete - then we'd have had no problem producing a clear, fair and perhaps even well-referenced answer. The difficulty is not with the open-endedness of the quantity of answers requested - we can deal with that by simply enumerating stuff until we get bored or the thread scrolls off the top and into oblivion. Interpreting "worst" is subjective...and there lies the problem. If your family was killed by a US air strike - that comes in as "worst" - but if you live in the US, you can probably imagine much worse things than a few civilians getting killed as a side effect of what some consider to be a legitimate war. Thus we fall into the realms of opinion - and that's where things become problematic. IMHO, the response to questions like this is simply not to answer them if you find them upsetting or difficult. An occasional OP who asks such a question may be disappointed not to get an answer - but we don't guarantee to provide answers to everything - so that's life. The OP who is trolling - and hoping to get exactly the kind of response we actually gave - will not be happy about not stirring up trouble - but that's A Very Good Thing. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of "don't bite the newbies", it's a case of "don't feed the troll". Recently there have been at lot of deliberately inflammatory questions posed by an anonymous IP in the range 79.122.xxx or 94.27.xxx. His actions have gone way past the threshold of assuming good faith or being civil. These IP addresses are all registered as T-Mobile accounts in Budapest; they are all clearly the same person, endlessly trying to stir up controversy and use the Reference Desk to pursue some unfathomable agenda by posing questions such as the following:

what parts of American life do antisemites claim Jews control?
on an 'eye for an eye' basis (if it doesn't matter whose eye), if Israel were wanting to make up for Jewish holocaust deaths, how long could it keep up MAXIMUM "rate" of palestinian losses reached?
Where can I find genocide curves (graphs)? I mean by number of deaths (ie time would be x, deaths y), starting with the first deaths on the way to snowballing to the larger genocide?
why do religious groups have the right to associate etc etc but we don't have the right to ostracize them
what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done?

Another element of this poster's modus operandi is to continually deny that he is trying to start a debate over and over again, perpetuating the kind of meta-discussions you all find so distasteful. I leap in quickly to nip this blatant trolling in the bud, and it has no effect whatsoever. Seriously, he's taking you all for a ride. You're doing exactly what he wants. I'd say that the only option available that will actually work is to remove his questions on sight. Then we can have the usual ineffectual little argument here, and StuRat can make his usual complaint that the question was perfectly legitimate, but at least the troll will not be fed. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 *That* is a much more convincing argument than "failure to use the shift key". The community has agreed to remove questions from a particular user before, but *please* bring the removal discussions here, not on the Reference Desk. – 74  20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion moved from this question – 74  16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum or chatroom. This is NOT an appropriate place to start such a debate.
2. If you look on your computer keyboard, at either side of the bottom row of letters is a little thing called a "shift key". If you use it, you'll be able to type capital letters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just about to say what Malcolm XIV said - the ref-desk isn't a good place for something like this, the answer would be different depending on the responder, their awareness of US history or their own cultural/national views on the US. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
i dont see why malcolm needed to be so rude to me, i think it is a straightforward question, and i doubt anyone can say in good faith that i'm trying to start a debate. can malcolm seriously imagine "no my answer is the worst! no mine! no mine is the worst!". i just can't imagine people arguing about whose answer is the worst... 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You did not ask a factual question to which you required an answer, you asked an open question in the hope of engendering a discussion. This is not the place for that. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
this is not the science reference desk, so your statement that "[I] did not ask a factual question" is inappropriate. History is an appropriate subject for the humanities reference desk. 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Whilst the question (or, rather, the answers) MAY be leading to a discussion, it must be valid to question the political ethos of a nation (or any other entity) in a historical context. It is not the duty of the querent to worry about the neutrality of the respondents on the reference desk, it is their right to assume that unbiased (unbiassed) answers are supplied. The above comments reek of censorship. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
i think it's too far to call the above rude response 'censorship'. perhaps it was made because originally my quesiton read 'what is the worst thing' ( i just just changed the question to 'what are some of the worst things). this removes the element that might have been thought to start debate. this way people can list some of the worst things and there shouldnt be any debate about it. 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Well, no. 'Worst' is a matter of judgement and opinion, not of fact. To take the example of the Vietnam War: some people will point to incidents such as My Lai and proclaim that this guarantees that this war was a terrible thing for the US to be involved in. Others held at the time, and some still do, that the domino effect required that the US respond strongly to communist aggression, in order to prevent the steady assimilation of South East Asia, and subsequently the whole western Pacific, by a generally hostile power. It's a matter for debate, not definition, and that's why asking the question here is a bad idea. You'll find that most of our articles don't say 'this was one of the worst things this-or-that-entity did', because that's not an encyclopedic (or historiographically responsible) approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
in fact i did look for wikipedia lists of the worst but didn't find any. how do you suggest i phrase my question to be neutral? should i add 'in international opinion' or 'in the opinion of leading humanitarian organizations such as amnesty international' or 'according to contemporary historians' or what? i mean i'm sure theres a way to phrase the question neutrally - what do you think it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.72.101 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You call something like 10 tit-for-tat responses and 1 statement of opinion to not be a debate? Clearly we could each list historic acts of US agression, or even link to Military_history_of_the_United_States, but the question you're asking is not one that someone can say "it's the this - look here". If you'd said "What acts of agression/scandals have the US undertook/been implicated in in their history" you'd get more factual responses - as it is you've got a debate about whether or not the ref-desk is a place for debates, with a tiny bit of info about US history tacked-on. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"Focus" is the problem. Questions should only be asked that, given the context of the question's subject matter, can be addressed with focus appropriate to achieving a productive "answer," even if that isn't the "correct," or complete answer. One adjunct to achieving this is continued input from questioners, beyond the initial posing of the question. This is something that is sometimes lacking. Aside from any of that, I think the above question is a bad question because it is offensive. The United States may have done some bad things. But the question assumes there are a handful of unquestionably and readily identifiable "bad things" to choose among. This is simply offensive. Bus stop (talk)
As stated above many times... This is not discussion forum. It is a reference desk. This isn't the realm to state "I would think...". Where is your reference that not getting involved in WW2 sooner is pretty bad. We normally let the need to quote specific references slide because the responses are clearly from some form of reference. This appears to me to just be your opinion. It also leads to a question asked on the talk page: Why, when there have been so many responses so far telling the OP that this is a request for opinion and we will give opinion does a user feel such an urge to give his or her opinion? Some RD regulars claimed that nobody ever pipes in with an answer after the consensus states that there should be no answer given. Apparently, they were wrong. No matter how clear we make it, someone will need to answer. -- kainaw™ 14:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
When someone asks a question, I am not going to read 1000 words of everyone else bickering. If it is not medical or legal, I will instead answer it. I made it clear that the answer was my judgment, the OP can choose to take it or leave it. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to read 1000 words of everyone else bickering. You only need to read the big box at the top of this page: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." -- kainaw™ 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Kainaw took the words straight out of my mouth! The OP shouldn't have asked the question because there's no way to answer it (as "worst" is a relative term), and we thus shouldn't be answering it. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The question requests opinions and will only create discord. I could cite several such instances in the past. It should be removed.It is like a "slam book" wherein high school girl bullies take turns writing down what features of an unpopular girl contribute most to making her so ugly. Blogs are thataway. Edison (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is the consensus that this is an acceptable type of question (since the objections were moved here and incarcerated in a box while the question was left on the main page), is there any objection to my posting the same question but applying to many other countries? England, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Iran, Denmark, France, Spain, Turkey, Russia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Israel, Palestine, Egypt? I am curious about the worst things each of these countries have done. Of course the responses should be confined to "facts and widely-held (and referenced) opinions." as is requested on the main page with reference to the original question i objected to. Edison (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

<sarc>Now that would be pointy.</sarc> Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
Then there could be questions similar to this, but addressing "What are the worst stereotyped negative views about..." various racial, religious or ethnic groups. Of course only "facts and widely held (and referenced) opinions" would be allowed. Anyone see the downside to opening up the "Reference Desk" to listing all the negative "widely held opinions?" which can be "referenced" meaning that a book, magazine or newspaper or other reliable source somewhere, sometime, once printed that people held the "opinion?" Edison (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as the OP asks a specific question that doesn't require answerer's opinions, I think we should allow it. We shouldn't censor questions that ask for bad things done by a country/race/religion simply because it asks for bad things done by a country/race/religion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A distinction should be made between a question asked and the posing of a topic for discussion. I can't define these two things. It depends on complex variables. But a question is not legitimate if it is more of a posing of a topic for discussion than it is a question seeking an answer or at least some kind of intelligent resolution. One factor involved in this distinction is whether the person posting the original question remains involved in the discussion with additional posts. By doing so, there exists the possibility that the original questioner can refocus the conversation on his/her primary concern as the discussion naturally veers off course. I think it has to be understood that a certain amount of responsibility rests with the original questioner in any use of the reference desks to not only post a proper question but to keep the ensuing conversation on topic. I feel that it has to be understood that they have a responsibility to refine their concerns as the discussion unfolds. Failing this, the discussion should be discontinued. The reference boards should not be used in a way that simply allows individuals to set up topics for discussion. Focus should be present in the original question, and refocussing should be supplied as needed by the original questioner. If the original questioner is no longer involved in the answering of some types of questions I don't think responding should be continued. Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've handled this in the past by explaining that the reference desk is for matters of fact, not matters of opinion. It is clear to anyone who isn't being stupidly stubborn that "worst" by itself is a matter of opinion. So, simply explaining that "worst" is a matter of opinion is enough. Then, I suggest different ways to ask the question, such as "Are there magazine articles or books detailing the worst..." or "Is there a standard measure what it means to be the worst..." In this case, the method used to salvage this question was to completely abandon previous years of consensus and tell users to have a free-for-all giving out all the opinions they like as long as the opinion is a fact. For example, it is a fact that the U.S. has launched satellites into space. So, claim it is bad and add it to the list. Is it the worst? Who cares. There is no standard measure of worst. Anything can be the worst. How about the Olsen twins? How about Oklahoma. I'm sure someone thinks that is the worst thing the U.S. has done. -- kainaw™ 19:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(e.c.) Also -- it just occurred to me -- the person should be explaining why they want to know something. For instance -- why does the original questioner want to know, "What are some of the worst things the united states has ever done?" Is this some kind of a survey or something? If so -- that is probably not a proper use for the reference desk. Explaining why someone wants to know something is not a prerequisite to posting a question. It is a focussing mechanism, I think. The problem, as I see it, is one of focus. These reference boards are at their best when they are focussed, and at their worst when they are unfocussed. This can be difficult to define. But each instance should be examined on the basis of whether or not the question is answerable. And, as I said above, one of the factors concerns whether the original poster remains involved in the ensuing discussion in a capacity that serves to fine tune that focus. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've posted examples of his previous questions, immediately above that huge green box there. He's not doing a survey, he's not looking for information – he's doing it to make some kind of point. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Malcolm. By itself, this question is not well defined, but I would be willing to assumed good faith. Given the evidence of this OPs previous activity, I think future questions from him of this nature should be removed. (And maybe this one) 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem shouldn't be whether or not to respond to an original question. The problem is how to conduct a response and for how long. The question as asked begs for a very lengthy response. I doubt if anyone understands that the best use of the reference boards involves responses beyond a certain length. That is why it is critical that any ensuing response be wound down -- not as a result of the exhausting of all possible responses -- but by refocussing as supplied by the OP. The OP should be involved in the winding down of the discussion. I am generally opposed to the throwing out of any questions. But improperly constructed questions have to be refocussed. Responsibility for that of necessity involves purposeful additional input from people posting questions. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal?

To get us back on track here, in light of the evidence of persistent trolling presented by Malcolm XIV above, I'm decidedly undecided about whether the question should be removed. I think the question might prove informative to some people (not necessarily the OP) and that it isn't the "worst" of the OP's questions, but the risk is that any recognition will inspire further trolling. The majority above appear to favor removal, but I'd like to condense the discussion a bit to verify that we're in agreement on that action. – 74  21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the horse has left the barn as far as removing the current question goes, though I'd like to see a notice added to it that further responses would be inappropriate. I am in favour of removing any further questions from this IP that seem calculated to start a debate. (I know this is a subjective measure, but if he asks "Why is the sky blue", we shouldn't remove it.) A notice should also be placed on the OPs talk page advising him of this discussion and warning that future trolling of the RefDesk will not be tolerated. - EronTalk 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that I advised him of it the instant I started the discussion. He has not chosen to post his thoughts here.Edison (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but he does seem to be using a dynamic IP address, so it's possible he won't see a talkpage message. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Very true. But given the grief that has descended advice that has been given in the past after failing to properly notify trolls OPs of question removals, we might as well give it a try. - EronTalk 21:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The soapboxing and debating is showing no signs of abating, so I'm going to hide the question. If anybody really objects, revert away, but be advised that all warnings are proving ineffectual. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

in light of the above I have made the question as historic, factual, and objective (and very very very narrow) as possible. Please put any lingering objections in the last section below (section: "Does anyone other than Malcolm XIV object to the current phrasing") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.175.226 (talk) 9 April 2009


He's back

See here. --Richardrj talk email 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore. Algebraist 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And again [2]. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

in light of the above I have made the question as historic, factual, and objective (and very very very narrow) as possible. Please put any lingering objections in the last section below (section: "Does anyone other than Malcolm XIV object to the current phrasing") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.175.226 (talk) 9 April 2009

better?

someone just gave me a link to the above. whoa did you guys talk about me a lot! I wasn't part of the above debate, but if I had been I would have understood you easily enough, that it is up to me to be as factual and narrow as possible so as to stem too much semantic debate, etc. so I've tried to rephrase my question in a very very narrow and as factually as possible way, I hope you will agree that the new version leaves nothing contestible. I am not an expert of history and was educated (in the united states) with a glowing idea of America throughout its history, except perhaps such things as slavery or the vietnam war, so the reason for my question is that i genuinely dont know how international historians and others feel. i didn't know there was so much debate here and i hope the question is now uncontroversial. 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

the current phrasing is incredibly factual, only about historian's opinions about the very largest-scale things (such as the Nazi holocaust or stalin's starving to death of millions of Ukrainians), and I can't fathom why it would bother you. Please explain here. 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

new narrow phrasing

here is the new very very narrow and factual phrasing, it is not controversial and only about historians' opinions about the very largest-scale things (such as the Nazi holocaust). If even THIS bothers you -- it is not asking for any opinion, but just historians' consensus -- please explain here why. I think other than Malcolm, who responded rudely to my very first question, no one ojbects to this phrasing. 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to break the 3 Revert Rule for this troll. Somebody else please deal with him. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
see last section. If other people feel the same way you do about the current question then I will have to take my question to a different forum, as I just can't understand why anyone would object to this very very narrow and factual version, which is about historians' opinions about something major, and is very specific. 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do take it to a(nother) discussion forum. The Reference Desk is not one, and you have been asked many, many times not to treat it as one. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming into this late, but I don't want this to appear in retrospect as though Malcolm XIV's position is an isolated one. The RefDesk is not a discussion forum, and these questions are out of place. --Scray (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Malcolm XIV object to the current phrasing?

I read the above comments and rephrased the question incredibly narrowly and factually. Does anyone other than Malcolm X1V object to the current phrasing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.175.226 (talk) 9 April 2009

Yes. pablohablo. 10:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If the rest of you feel that way too I will voluntarily remove my question, however the current phrasing is:

"has the United States ever done anything of which international opinion is as condemning as it is of the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany?" I feel that this is very neutral, as it does not ask for YOUR opinion, but only international opinion, and only very major things on par with the holocaust, and is also very specific -- in fact it is a yes-or-no question. I don't believe I would get this kind of response as above if I asked this question on a non-English wikipedia reference desk. Since my question is so factual, why don't you just answer it here - then I won't be accused of soapboxing? 94.27.175.226 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because at this point people have stopped assuming good faith. Which, contrary to popular opinion, is not always unwarranted. Anyway, the only things on par are the treatment of Native Americans, slavery, maybe firebombing/atom-bombing of civilians in WWII. But there are many ways to look at each of those. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked User:94.27.175.226 for 24 hours for persistent trolling of the ref desk. —Angr 10:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Is anyone opposed to treating this user as a troll from now on (i.e. reverting any suspicious questions on sight)? Algebraist 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good plan - although he is using dynamic IPs they are all from Budapest, plus he should be easy enough to spot by his quack. pablohablo. 11:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, the fact that he never uses capital letters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ssshh! He may cunningly adopt them as a ruse! pablohablo. 11:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
lots of people never use capital letters. anyway, that's hardly a reason to block someone. —angr 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No, but it does make him relatively easy to identify. That and the endless trolling. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Trolling is very annoying, but in general I would be careful about taking special measures towards one user, expecially if anonymous. He can easily change address, and on the other hand an innocent user may be mistaken for him and censored. Nevertheless I would agree to remove questions that are not well-posed, and may cause endless and useless debeats, but still assuming good faith, like in the cases of requests of medical/legal advices. In some cases I'd ask the questioner to reformulate more properly his/her query. Maybe it is needed a criterium to classify the hill-posed questions. --pma (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep this type of debate off the Ref Desk ?

If there's a consensus to remove this Q, then I don't object to the removal. However, can we please not start debates about this type of thing on the Ref Desk itself ? I, and I believe many readers, find such debates there to be far more annoying than the thing they are debating. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have read it all wrong, but the problem I saw was not with the initial response. It stated that the question appeared to be an attempt to start a debate. Instead of coming here to discuss that assertion, those who apparently think that having debates on the RD is a great idea argued against the original response - in the thread itself. That is the source of the problem. We apparently have a consensus now that it was in fact an attempt to start a debate. Those who responded to the original response inside the thread arguing about the policy against debates are the source of the problem. How do we deal with it? In the realm of requests for medical advice, we hide/remove the question and force the discussion here. Is that an acceptable solution to this problem? -- kainaw™ 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I object in general to a question which seeks to depict any one country as evil by asking for opinions of "the worst things" the country has done. The effect of such a question, whatever the OP intent may have been, is to turn a REFERENCE DESK into a soapbox for accusations and counteraccusations. This is the effect a troll seeks. (Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...). A philosophical question on the nature of Evil could look at the justifications various countries gave for slavery, invasion and conquest, torture, genocide, bombing or firebombing or atomic bombing of civilian areas, car bombs, suicide bombing, political assassinations, allowing the military to commit atrocities without fear of punishment or with active encouragement, execution of prisoners, persecution on religious, racial or ethnic grounds, blowing up government buildings by "freedom fighters," slave labor camps, capitol punishment in general, starving populations of occupied territory, harrassing persons in occupied territories with unreasonable "roadblocks," land appropriations, use of human shields, collective punishment, raping and pillaging in conquered lands, use of white phosphorus on civilians, torpedoing passenger ships of neutral countries, gas warfare, piracy, economic blockades which put water treatment and sewage treatment plants out of commission and caused massive deaths of civilians from disease, cultural imperialism which forced occupied or conquered population to adopt the conqueror's language and religion, placing civilians in concentration camps where disease and starvation decimated them, prolonged imprisonment without trial of accused enemies of the state or "illegal combatants," spying, stealing trade secrets, allowing drug producers and smugglers to operate out of a country, allowing criminals to hide their ill-gotten gains in secret bank accounts, exporting poison to third world countries in the form of defective medicine or ships or electronic components for recycling, exporting weapons to abusive regimes so they can keep their populations under control, and otherwise enabling dictators, failing to stand up to tyrants until their power is so great that millions die in a world war, or signing treaties which stab "allies" in the back, or "victors' justice" in which leaders or soldiers of a defeated nation are held to a higher standard than leaders or soldiers of the victorious nations. Edison (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. As I tried to tell you above, this question was faulty (and therefore censorable) because it asked for opinions. Not because it asked for opinions about bad things done by a country. If a question asks for specific/factual things done by a country that some might reasonably call bad, we should answer it. Is that what you're saying? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow indeed, a 274 word sentence! -hydnjo (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe removing the question to encourage discussion of whether or not to remove the question is an appropriate response. Such action has repeatedly been justified for medical advice to prevent "harm"; there is no risk of harm from a poorly-worded or intentionally provocative question.
I do, however, agree that the initial response by Malcolm XIV wasn't necessarily a problem (well, the first half of the initial response); if it weren't for the "shift key" bite I would have left it in place (as I did with Tango's response here). (In retrospect, moving the "shift key" comment to the talk page with all the others because of a bite probably was not the right way to handle it.)
Perhaps it's just the wiki mindset, but we don't seem to have a problem with people who feel the need to repeatedly state the same answer to a question; why then does everyone seem to think that "we will not answer your question" needs to be repeated ad nauseam? Basically, if you want to debate the value of a question on *any* grounds, I believe you should do so here, not by stacking unhelpful responses on the question itself. Similarly, if you believe someone has unfairly characterized a question, responding with a link to a discussion on the talk page would seem to be a good way to allow that conversation without cluttering up the question. In short, I think we should treat the Reference Desk pages a little more like an article and a little less like an extended talk page (the Reference Desk isn't an appropriate place for debate). – 74  23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted question

This [3] by 79.75.48.101 (talk) doesn't belong on our RD. -hydnjo (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now [4] the troll is trying to start an edit war. Suggestions about dealing with this most likely banned user? -hydnjo (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks [5] Equendil. -hydnjo (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, thanks again :) hydnjo (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything inherently wrong with the Q. If restated as "what is the purpose of the glans at the end of the human penis", it seems quite reasonable. Does the OP have a history of trolling or do you simply judge him to be a troll due to the sexual nature of the Q and his misuse of the word "pianist" in place of "penis" and "knob" in place of "glans" ? StuRat (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, merely claiming that something "doesn't belong" isn't all that useful. It would be better if you could say why (because you think it's trolling) and then provide your evidence. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another apparent request for discussion

As we've just been discussing... I attempted to do the simple warning on this question, but the OP doesn't appear to understand. The President may run again. He may not. That is a future event that, in my opinion, only leads to a discussion/debate about what his possible future intentions may be. Now that the warning I wrote is buried, I'm sure others will jump in quickly to start up a healthy debate. -- kainaw™ 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There certainly are lots of facts that could be given in reply to such a Q. Is he allowed to run again ? Has he announced an intention to run (or not to) ? Is he currently popular enough for another run to have a good chance of success ? Is his health good enough for another term ? While none of these will definitely tell the OP whether he would run again or not, they certainly provide info needed to make such a prediction. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
However, none of those will answer the question asked: Who is next? It is, to me, no different than asking "Who will be the next President of the United States?" Sure, we can provide a lot of references related to the topic, debate the validity of each, and have a long discussion about it. However, that is a debate/discussion. My understanding is that we are attempting to avoid debates and discussions. -- kainaw™ 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If we can provide related facts, we should. For example, for similar questions about Fidel Castro, the answer was that the apparent heir was his brother Raúl Castro. We were asked that Q and answered as such, if my memory serves me. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Asking if Castro has chosen his own successor and asking who will win the next Kenyan Presidential election are, to me, two different things. The first asks for something that has happened - Castro has chosen his successor - his brother. Nobody has won the Kenyan Presidential election. I'm sure that people have opinions about who might run and who might win. However, any attempt to answer the question will surely lead to a debate. -- kainaw™ 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
While Fidel was still in office, the person to succeed him wasn't necessarily clear. We could list who had been chosen, of course, but that alone wouldn't guarantee that it would actually happen (among other reasons why it might not have is that Raúl is almost as much of a fossil as old Fidel). So, in both cases it was unclear who the eventually successor would be, but that doesn't mean we can't provide some insight into the possibilities. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We are discussing two different things with the Castro example. The question I remember is "Who has Castro chosen?", not "Who will take over for Castro?" One asks about something that happened. One asks about something in the future. I strongly disagree that we should "provide some insight", which is a rationalization of "speculate", for questions about future events. The standard phrase is "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." In the disclaimer at the top of the page, which I assume is based on consensus, it reads: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." Where do you draw the line between speculation and prediction? -- kainaw™ 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I take that bit to mean we don't state that a future event will occur, as fact, but only as probabilities. We certainly can state info about possible future events, though, like the date a movie is scheduled to be released, the probabilities of various degrees of global warming over various time frames, the chance of rain tomorrow in a given city, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
First, thank you for the polite warning on the question with the discussion here. I have no problem with the warning that we do not predict future events, nor do I have a problem with 128.104.112.117's response. We can provide some facts (such as when the next election will occur, and the fact that the last election was heavily contested) but, since the OP asked "Who will be the next president of Kenya?", we are unable to provide a complete answer. That's OK—our guidelines do not require complete answers (with the potential exception of medical advice). So, in short, to me this appears to be the "system" working (not perfectly, but not poorly either). – 74  20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another removal

Here's a new one. Someone using the Ref Desk to advertise a book. There's not even a pretence of a question. Removed. [6] Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good removal. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How to Print a few More Pages from Ink Cartridges

You posted your question on the wrong page. I've moved it to the miscellaneous reference desk, where you are more likely to get a response. --Richardrj talk email 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have moved it to the Computer Desk, assuming he's talking about a computer printer's ink cartridges. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

question removed as medical advice request (hungover)

While I probably could have just deleted the thread outright as a troll, I'm going to give you folks a laugh asssume good faith by following the med-advice process. The question presents a symptom and asks for prognosis and treatment recommendations.

Here's the diff of the removal: [[7]].

Cool? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Ten, I thought we came up with an agreement (item 5a), on my talk page, that you wouldn't post Q's to the Ref Desk talk page with your opinion as the title, and that I therefore wouldn't change the title. Since you aren't holding to your part of the agreement, I'm not constrained to hold to my part, either. I've therefore changed the title to a neutral one. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • StuRat, you're defending a troll, here. Honestly. And our 'agreement' was never finalized — you were only interested in agreeeing to the terms which would constrain my actions but not affect your own conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not defending anyone. I've made no statement of support for the original Q. You're original list of proposed agreements on my talk page was rather one-sided, but I thought we'd come up with some which are equitable, namely 3, 5a, and 6. Are you saying you no longer have any interest in agreeing to any of those rules of civil discourse ? StuRat (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you two take discussion of your disagreements to a more appropriate forum - like a user talk page? --Scray (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also added a link from the Q back to here. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that this does not qualify as medical advice, jurt stupid trolling. Instead of removing the question, I think a better response would've been to direct the OP to craigslist personals, since they are asking for help masturbating. Ah, scope ambiguity. --Shaggorama (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sense of humour failure and process wonkery. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How about a green checkmark with the note "I'm not too hungover. Done!" :) Franamax (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Q removed: "Why does Barack Obama get a reception as if he was Jesus or Hitler?"

  • Jayron32 removed a Ref Desk Question as "not appropriate for the Reference Dek" (sic): [8]. As they didn't say why it's not appropriate I'll guess that it's considered to be trolling. Jayron32 also directed them to this Talk Page. However, to my knowledge, there was no mention of the Q anywhere here until I added this. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also added a link from there to here. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Read for yourself. [9]. This has no business being here, and was BEYOND eggregious. And I didn't direct them to this talk page. Mr K. did: [10]. I did'nt think there was much appropriate to discuss anyways. If you think the question should be restored, be my guest. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Mr K added text saying the Q had been removed and directing them here, but didn't actually remove it. You later did that. StuRat (talk)
I'm fine on the removal itself, but don't think the title of the Q there should have been changed, as that makes it difficult for people to find the Q. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm the wrong person to be asking this, since I spectacularly missed the trolling on the above section, but why is it necessary to leave anything of this? Who, precisely, are we concerned will have difficulty finding obvious trolling? Why will it be necessary for them to find said trolling? What's wrong with "ignore"? — Lomn 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense once we establish that it is trolling. However, at the time of the removal it's only one person's opinion that it is, so the OP and anyone else should be able to find the Q so they can find the link here, and participate in the discussion. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If the title contains objectionable material sufficient to warrant removal of the question then it must be changed, regardless of any hypothetical difficulty finding it afterwards. I support this removal and title change. – 74  17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While I found the content objectionable enough to warrant removal (that bit about wishing Obama would be assassinated), I didn't find the title so objectionable that it needed to be changed. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


When a trolling question this offensive is removed, we should not leave behind on the main page the text of the question which also achieves the effect the troll intended. This would also apply to a question with racial, ethnic or religious smears inherent in its initial text. Edison (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We are not here to be moral judges. While it may be distasteful to leave questions that you dislike alone - it is in fact our policy that you do so. Opinions vary widely. Personally, I regard religious "smears" as entirely fair (although I'd personally, certainly not encourage racial or ethnic smears). We don't hesitate to demean people who believe that the earth is flat - and religion falls into exactly the same category for me. There was nothing wrong (from a Wikipedia standpoint) with the question as asked in the title. You might argue that it falls foul of our restriction on soapboxing - but asking why Obama is such a polarizing figure isn't (by itself) a bad question - it's just poorly phrased. We have a wide tolerance for poorly phrased questions - because OP's cannot be expected to understand our rules. The paragraph the OP wrote beneath the question was pretty nasty stuff - but we don't censor here on Wikipedia - so the best we can say is that if you don't like it - ignore the question. SteveBaker (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
We endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses. Comparing Obama to Jesus and Hitler while hoping for his assassination seems needlessly offensive to me. If the OP wants to rephrase it as "Why is Obama such a polarizing figure?" then I'd have no problem with it. In the mean time, censorship does not apply to trolling and vandalism. – 74  14:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Err, I don't think there's really any question about removing this one. Comparing Obama to Jesus AND Hitler—not a good start. Hoping for his assassination... pushes it over the edge. Just troll food. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
But he wasn't making that comparison - he was asking why Obama is treated as if he was Jesus/Hitler. That's not the same thing at all. But this is all irrelevent. We don't remove questions without discussion unless they are clear requests for medical or legal advice. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Similes use the words "like" or "as", don't they? Similes are direct comparisons. I endorse removal of the Q and changing of the title. The OP can easily reformulate in less inflammatory terms. AND there is absolutely no evidence that Obama is treated the same as either of those figures - this leads to the conclusion that the OP is erecting a soapbox from which to declaim.
And Steve, I strongly disagree about "smears" based on religion. Ridiculing belief in a flat earth is one thing, same for those who believe that man walked with the dinosaurs. But there are many many many people who believe in a God who are just fine. Einstein, Galileo and Darwin for starters. The jury is out on whether there is a divine creator, we have no irrefutable proof of absence, and many clues that there was one - like this incredible world we smell flowers and watch little birds and huge galaxies in. Religious belief is fine with me - just don't try to persuade me, I've got my own spiritual ways. And don't try to brainwash my kids, and don't pass laws based on your own faith in a God some other human told you existed. Other than that, I may refute you, but I sure won't try to smear you. Franamax (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The important part is they weren't comparing "him" to Hitler, but "his treatment". This is like when I compared Oliver Hardy's mustache to Hitler's. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Q's removed as trolling.

rm'd: [11] and [12]. We all love ya Stu, and are glad you're back after your hand injury. My nefarious plan to get you to switch to Windows Me and break your computer was mostly just joking around. But really, sometimes WP:DENY is best.—eric 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you should give me a hand for recovering from my back injury. :-) StuRat (talk)
[13].—eric 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, may we please see your reasons for thinking the 2 Q's (and their answers) you removed are trolling ? StuRat (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
@Eric: We really have to reserve the act of removing a question for things that strictly break our rules and in a very definite manner. Questioners who are simply being annoying must be ignored. I don't believe that any of the recent removals rise to the level of that. If you don't like the question - don't answer it. If you think it's the work of a troll - don't feed it. But deleting the question is a very serious matter - not to be undertaken lightly. Certainly this kind of question should not be removed without a discussion here first. The only questions we remove on sight without prior discussion are legal and medical matters where it is widely believed that harm may be caused by people answering them. In the cases above, there is no harm in leaving the question there until/unless you get consensus here to remove it. Please restore the questions you deleted immediately - and then we can discuss the matter. (Incidentally: The reason to discuss first is that the 'window' for a question to be answered is usually no more than a day or two on the busiest ref.desks. If you incorrectly removed the question for even a day then you've seriously jeapordized the ability of the OP to get an answer in the event that you turn out to have made an unacceptable decision. SteveBaker (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would it be "a very serious matter"? Probably no one was maimed or killed as a result, the OP may have been so upset they went off and beat their dog or kicked their cat, but otherwise no animals were harmed during the removal of this question. What makes these "newfags" and "right fat fucks" very serious matters requiring our discussion?—eric 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Err... the first one, about 4chan, was just trolling and had no question. "Why is my bulletin board awesome and the other one is 'full of newfags'." That is pretty obviously not something appropriate for the Ref Desk.
The second one is mostly pointless, plus a nicely offensive "You'd have to be a right fat fuck to want that. More American influence I see..". Great—incidental and pointless anti-Americanism. While I have my own criticisms of my own country, I think we would all agree that pointless national insults are not really acceptable discourse here (any more than pointless jokes about British teeth, French laziness, or Italian excitability are really appropriate).
I think these removals were fine. We are not Yahoo! Answers. We have quality control. We do not have to sit here while people use this as their personal soapbox or use it to ask pointless questions. (That's what the Entertainment Desk is for! Zing!) The Ref Desk is not a free for all—that is its strength. If you ask a real question here you can reasonably expect a real answer. If you use it to just play around and troll you will just have your questions removed. I think that's a pretty good policy. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
For the first post you said he was promoting his own bulletin board. It didn't appear that way to me. What is your evidence that that's his bulletin board ? Instead of saying a Q should be deleted if there's anything bad in it, I tend to think it should be kept if there's a good Q in there anywhere. There seemed to be a core Q in that first one on why different BBs attract different types of people and posts (I'd say it's because one such poster attracts others who agree with them, and so on.)
On the second post it seems like a rather light Q about a food recipe. As an American I don't like being called a "fat fuck", but I'm not going to remove a Q just because of it.
I'm more concerned with the removal process than these two posts. Thus I agree with Steve that we shouldn't just call someone a troll and remove their posts without even giving reasons for saying they are a troll. Do they have a history of trolling ? Then provide some links showing so. And let's allow the consensus process to work rather than have each person delete any Q's they don't like. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think 98 meant the OP owns the bulletin board rather it's a bulletin board the OP uses and wants to promote. It's quite common of course that people try to spam their favourite site even if they don't actually own it and have no financial incentive. I'm not necessarily supporting the removal without discussion however Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't a med or legal removal or anything like that, so revert away if you think i made an error in judgement. No big deal. It's not worth our time to have a discussion on the merits of such questions.—eric 06:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem here or are we just arguing because we just can't be having people removing obviously trolling and/or uncivil questions without some kind of process and a bunch of new policy pages ? Equendil Talk 09:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think we should use our judgment. There are a limited number of us. We can interact cordially. We can remove things, report them here, if someone wants to reinstate it, so be it. If we head towards the endless wikilawyering direction then forget the whole site, as far as I am concerned. It is the primary reason I stopped editing the main Wikipedia site and permanently logged out. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's very likely that I'd have agreed to promptly remove these two posts had the question been brought up here first. That's not what (I think) most people are discussing here. The real question is whether (as a matter of general policy - and not relating to these two specific cases) we should delete first and debate later - or debate first and delete later.
In the case of medical/legal questions, we have a guideline and common practice that says "Delete first - then debate" - that's because we believe (or at least our consensus-driven guidelines/practices tell us, even if we don't believe) that answering these questions when we should not could be a serious moral/ethical or legal matter - hence there is a measure of urgency in ensuring that no answers appear on the desk until we've debated it. If someone asks whether they should be concerned about some pain in their chest and some amateur doctor-wannabe says "it's indigestion" - then the OP may go off and act upon that immediately and do themselves some serious harm instead of calling a doctor. Hence for medical/legal questions, the clear guideline is: "Remove first - debate later".
BUT: In the case of non-questions, trolls, soap-boxing, annoying idiots of all kinds - there is no urgency. It is perfectly safe to leave the question on the RD page while we debate what we should do about it. The reason to do that is that should we happen to decide that the question does indeed pass muster and allow it to be answered - then by the time a day or two has gone by, it'll already have scrolled so far up the page that nobody will likely answer it anyway. Quite often, our many non-english-speaking OP's fail to phrase things correctly and can look like they are soapboxing or whatever...it should be OK to provide answers to such things while the debate continues here on the discussion page.
Hence - my recommended "best-practice" is: Delete likely medical/legal questions on sight - come here to debate them if that proves necessary. For other questions - leave them where they are - possibly with a note linking to the debate here. Remove them if there is an early consensus to do so.
If something so totally horrible comes up that it really needs to be deleted in the face of this guideline - then WP:BOLD and WP:IAR apply and you go out on a limb and delete it...but expect to be able to defend your decision REALLY well on the super-rare occasions you do that...you need to be really, really certain that you're right and that the need is urgent. What we must avoid at all costs is routinely allowing just anyone to delete any question (or answer) just because it offends them or something like that. Wikipedia does NOT employ censorship.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've archived User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award

It's now inactive, pending a resolution of whether it has a future or should be binned. I'm discussing things with Steve at his talk page and will return here when done. It might take some time, as I'm going to be editing rather sporadically for the next while. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was glad to see the recent resurrection of the award, and I think this "archiving" is a sad event. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think only Steve has taken issue with the basic idea of the award. It is a pity that one editor's negative reaction has had such a disproportionate impact. How to indicate the award (on the RDs, on this talk page, on its own sub-page, or any combination of these) is a side-issue which need not put a stop to the whole award process while it is discussed. I support the RDTOTW award, and I would like to see it continue. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't think many people have thought through the implications. As I've explained to Dweller - FIRST we discuss - THEN we seek consensus - THEN we have (or don't have) a "Thread of the Week" award. So far - apart from a few random "It seems OK" kind of answers - there has been no proper debate. Here are some rather important questions we should be asking:
  1. Why do we need this? Does it solve a particular problem? Does it materially improve anything? Does it make matters worse?
  2. Why should one person set themselves up as arbitary judge & jury here? That's really not the Wiki-way. I can't think of any other part of Wikipedia where awards are given on PUBLIC pages (Yes, the WP:RD pages are on the public side of things) without consensus taking. Things like barnstars are strictly confined to User:Talk pages - things like "Featured Photo" are judged by committees. The only one I can think of is how User:Raul654 picks which order the featured articles appear on the front page - but he's not making value judgements about WHICH articles will be there - just which order they arrive in...and even that much individual control has been fiercely debated...not just "Meh - it seems harmless".
  3. If we need this AND we think (for some bizarre reason) that one person should judge this - how should we pick that person? Surely a self-nomination with zero debate isn't the right way?
  4. If there is a single-person judgement - what should the criteria be? Right now, this is an utterly arbitary matter...are we happy with that? Suppose Dweller should take a dislike to particular kinds of debate and quietly refuses to pick them...would that be fair or reasonable?
  5. What is the public's perception of this? Are they going to see it as an official Wikipedia matter where some particular questions and/or answers are somehow deemed more worthy than the others?
  6. What recourse is there if Dweller makes a really inappropriate choice? Can we then stop him? Reverse that decision?
  7. Why does it have to be on the WP:RD pages at all? If it's just a "for fun" thing - then should it perhaps be something which (like barnstars) are awarded on User:Talk pages? If Dweller wants to do this on his own User: page - then fine - I have no problem at all with that. Why does it have to be posted so prominantly on the public RD page? Perhaps this ref.desk discussion page is a better place for this? But the main page...jeez, it just makes the whole thing seem so amateurish.
  8. If all of the answers say "Yes, Dweller should do this in just the way he is" - then what's to stop other people from doing similar things? Do we really WANT the RD full of "Joe Blow's Best use of the word 'fuck' in an RD thread award"? Suppose some really annoying troll (which, incidentally, Dweller IS NOT) were to start doing something similar? How would we prevent that? If we let one person do it - what possible right do we have to arbitarily prevent someone else from doing it? Remember - when you set these kinds of precedent - you're setting them for YEARS into the future. Sure, you may not think it's a problem now - but how are you going to stop it in two years time if it all blows up in our faces? If Dweller is to be allowed to do this - then there has to be a guideline that says it's OK for him and it's not OK for anyone else...that's a nasty thing to do IMHO.
I don't happen to like this "Thread of the week" thing - it really bothers my - but please try to see past my personal preference here and think carefully about the answers to the questions I've asked above. This actually does matter in ways far beyond "Well, I think it's harmless" or "I think it's cool". This approach that Dweller is taking strikes at the heart of the way Wikipedia works harmoniously.
So - I'd like to have a proper debate - answers to penetrating questions - not just "Meh - it seems OK"...that just doesn't cut it. Proponents of this need to answer these questions properly and defend their positions. Thus far, not even Dweller himself (despite frequent prodding on my behalf) has addressed a single one of these rather serious concerns.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very loath to make personal reflections, and I'll try to keep this appropriate. Steve, a year or so back, you left the ref desks on a matter of high principle. I forget what the issue was, but the details are not important. Whatever it was, it was something so serious that it caused you to consider that you could not in conscience continue to participate. That's fine, and we can respect such a position even if we disagree that such drastic action as self-removal is warranted. But later, you returned. It wasn't because the issue of principle had ever been resolved to your satisfaction, but because you were "bored". In light of that, what weight should we place on your thoughts about the principles you describe above? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the questions at hand here? (The reason I came back was because a lot of very nice people asked me to - and the prevailing opinions on the original problem had drifted in the right direction in the meantime. Nowadays, if someone edits someone else's post - they'll get their knuckles rapped.) SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Any response to your question would risk me stepping over the line. I'd rather not do that, so I'll say no more. But thanks for the explanation. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, your questions are reasonable, but weren't Dweller's actions consistent with core Wikipedia spirit as exemplified by WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? Many good things might never have happened if they'd been prospectively subjected to the kind of scrutiny you suggest; rather, creativity is often dependent on some spontaneity, and letting that work itself out can be healthy if no one is getting hurt. I think it's fine to hash through some of this, but none of us can dictate the terms of the discussion (I realize that you didn't claim primacy here, but I do perceive the tone of your comments as forceful). BTW, I really don't think civil discussion is helped when one uses pejorative terms like "random" and "bizarre" to characterize recent and anticipated counter-arguments. --Scray (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, somewhat. If you read WP:BOLD - it points out that if people don't like your boldness - they'll revert it. I reverted Dweller's last award for that reason - and exactly per WP:BOLD. WP:BOLD is also talking about adding content to articles (or in this case to the RD) - NOT about extraneous things like making awards and such. Similarly, WP:IAR is actually telling you to ignore rules only under rather carefully described situations. It specifically points out that following common practices is important. The common practice in this case is that NOWHERE else in Wikipedia do we make awards on public pages without consensus. WP:IAR does not grant you permission to go against this common practice. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that I said "weren't Dweller's actions consistent with core Wikipedia spirit as exemplified by WP:BOLD and WP:IAR" (emphasis added). Sort of the antithesis of the process wonkery with which we're flirting. --Scray (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, you seem to be asking for a point by point response so:
  1. We don't need this, it solves no problem, whether or not it improves anything is subjective and I don't think that it makes anything (except your contempt) worse.
  2. Because he was being bold.
  3. I've already responded to your redundant need inquiry.
  4. Yada yada yada...
  5. I'm more concerned with your perception of this.
  6. Yeah sure - permaban!
  7. Well, we're all amateurs - some more or less than others.
  8. Hypotheticals are sometimes a good argument (Slippery slope) but I'm not particularly worried about it in this case.
I really don't really understand your intense negativity about Dweller's fun award. Without your making a big deal about it it may (or not) have just faded away as his time and attention allowed. Sometimes it's better to just let it be. -hydnjo (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually - the last time Dweller made these awards - I was on the point of making a complaint when he suddenly stopped doing it...so that was that. Now they are back - so evidently they didn't "just fade away" - hence I'm complaining. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So you seem to be mostly agreeing with me on point 1. On point 2, I'm not asking why Dweller did it so much as why we'd want to allow that...and you seem to be simply blowing off my other questions without seriously addressing any of them.
If we're not going to debate this properly - then I'll just continue to Be Bold and follow Wikipedia's standard practice of not doing "awards" on public pages without consensus - and hence I'll simply continue to revert Dweller's awards every time I see one.
I ask these questions in all seriousness and out of concern (as always) for the viability and reputation of the RD. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the proponents of this award do me the courtesy of answering them - clearly and without being insulting about it. Still, not one person has had the courage of their convictions to do that. Look at all the previous replies - does even ONE of them attempt to explain why a single person should do this rather than having a simple nomination/consensus thing once a week? Does anyone have a single argument as to why this award should be "presented" on the public page rather than here in the discussion page? No! Not one of you has stepped forward to justify these positions. You are all happier to say "Steve is a pain in the butt" (in various degrees of politeness) and to divert the discussion into directions where it will not productively come up with an answer. All I'm asking for is a proper debate on the merits of this award.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm in the "Meh - it seems OK" camp, and I don't feel a need to justify that at length. But here's an idea for a compromise - Steve, you said that "If Dweller wants to do this on his own User: page - then fine - I have no problem at all with that" - so how about if Dweller simply noted the award-winning threads at User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award, but did not flag them on the RD itself ? Then those who were interested could watchlist the awards page; those who were not interested could ignore it. Would you be okay with that approach ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
YES! Absolutely. Dweller can do what the heck he likes on his own user pages - I have no problem with that whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And, what are the folks' feelings about flagging the award here on the RD talk page? -hydnjo (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with having a mention here on the RD. After all, the name of the award was "Dweller's Ref Desk Thread of the Week award", not "The Official WP RefDesk Thread of the Week". --Scray (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm less keen on seeing it here on the RD discussion page - but if that's what it takes to get this junk out of the public-side pages - I'll take what I can get and call that a compromise. SteveBaker (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
@Steve, contrary to your statement above, I actually do see evidence of multiple people who have the "courage of their convictions" in that they have said they disagree with you. Why should they be compelled to conduct this discussion under the terms (long list of questions) that you have defined? You are alone in framing the discussion that way, and you aren't listing any specific guidelines or policies violated. From very early in this discussion I said that I shared some of your concerns about the "slippery slope" that Dweller's award might represent, and I generally like process, but this is a disproportionate response IMHO. --Scray (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Saying "I disagree" is not a debate - (Ref: The Argument Sketch). In a debate - I make some points and I ask some questions. You then read my points and you either carefully explain to me why they are incorrect - or you concede that they are in fact correct - then maybe you make some points and I either concede them or crush them to a pulp with overwhelming force of logic. We do this back and forth a couple of times - then we make our minds up. Up until the last couple of posts - I have not seen that happening. SteveBaker (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, you clearly feel strongly about this and you say you have fair and serious concerns. I believe you. However, either you have somehow failed to fully convey how fair and serious these concerns are, or other member of the community do not feel these concerns are as fair and serious as you feel they are. I'm sure you've been on the other side of this situation, where someone keeps asking you to debate something and you don't seem to be addressing what they want you to address. Help us out here. Could you give these concerns from a different angle? So far I don't see where your real issue is. 217.43.141.59 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm in the "Eh, I'm not a fan but I don't see the harm" group here.
However, Numbers 5 and 8 in Steve's list of talking points is worth thinking about. (5)As the only such award it may appear to have more prestige than it strictly warranted, but (8)if it stops being the only such award it could become a clutter.
I hate to see rules created for problems that don't yet exist, so perhaps the clutter should be ignored until it becomes an actual problem.
But what about number 5? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's a real danger that visitors to the RefDesk may mistake Dweller's award for an official, democratically arrived at award granted by the RefDesk itself. Would this cause serious problems? Off the top of my head, the only risk I can think of would be if Dweller started awarding to questions or threads that are obviously in violation of RefDesk rules and caused an apparent contradiction. APL (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(5) becomes a double-edged sword. So long as people think Dweller's award is "official" they are less likely to make unofficial awards of their own. But if it's unofficial - yet allowed to continue - then (8) seems like something that's going to happen in the future. My deep concern with (8) is that if Dweller is allowed to happily carry on doing this for (let's say) a year - then someone else comes along and starts doing something similar...on what grounds are we going to shut that person down if Dweller's award isn't official? You'd have a year of de-facto acceptance of this kind of thing and we'd have to arbitarily say "Dweller is allowed to do this - but not anyone else" - and that's REALLY unacceptable. There are an awful lot of people on Wikipedia (I know - I used to help out a lot with "Adopt-a-User") who come to Wikipedia - contribute almost nothing of value and award each other barnstars for annoying stupid little things like finding their "secret page" or some other piece of crap. If those kinds of people got the idea that awards for RD threads were an OK thing to do - we could easily find a bunch of them showing up at some time in the future. SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
For anyone saying "Steve, you stand alone in saying..." - not really, I pretty much agree with Steve all the way. Dweller is certainly acting in good faith, but the approach is just too problematic. It's not hard to see how this kind of thing could devolve into massive frippery, as SB describes just above. It's a tough call, 'cause some RD threads are totally awesome to read through and it would be nice to flag some of them (the ones "i" think are great, there's the rub). All in all, it's probably best that you people remain unsung heroes and the question threads stay faceless. Franamax (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Somehow this recent edit comes to mind. APL (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I cringed when I saw that. --Scray (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Precisely - and that's the kind of thing that the majority here are doing their damndest to encourage! SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The return of our friend from Budapest

He's back again [14]. So far, this can be interpreted as a legitimate question, but bear in mind his trolling tendency to try to start debates about genocide. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

and again here↓↓↓ I think. pablohablo. 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

question on France

previously there was a lot of debate here (on the talk page) about a somewhat similar question i asked and the conclusion then was that it was not an appropriate question, so i thought i would ask here first. may i ask on the reference desk for some of the notable actions on the part of France in its history that have engendered critical condemnation on the part of historians? for example i think france might have had colonies in africa, perhaps the treatment of people there might be one such thing, etc-- to get to the point, i want to ask this question at the reference desk. will this be okay? thank you. 94.27.151.13 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. The history of France is something that you could ask specific questions about, if you can't find the information elsewhere. One place start might be Wikipedia, which has an article France which will provide you with a starting point. To find out more information on what individual historians think about the history of France, you will probably have to read what the historians wrote about France. pablohablo. 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to point out that historians are not critics of history, they study and research past events, they write about them, they try to portray the past accurately, they do not judge, condemn or moralise. Equendil Talk 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible request for medical treatment

this is, to me, blatantly stating: "I have excessive gas and hypertension. Is raw milk a good treatment for me to try?" In my opinion, I can only answer that by diagnosing the problem and then making some sort of prognosis about how raw milk will help. -- kainaw™ 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Can RAW MILK save my ass? More appropriately, can it restore this Enzyme Lactase in me, is there a way to BEEF this up? The Gas buildup causes Hypertension in my lower back as well as my neck. Instead of cutting the milk products (btw, small amts do me over bad), is there a away, a natural way, besides reincarnation, that will cut the Farts?" clinches it for me. Good call IMHO. —Cyclonenim | Chat  00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake Editing?

For subject Is this a good computer I see that the user 64.172.159.130 Has made a post about a computer. When i look at user 64.172.159.130's Contributions i don't see any record of him making said post. In fact i don't see any evidence that he has ever been on the Reference desk at all! I am not really sure what is going on here but i would like it if someone with some knowledge of the inter workings of Wikipedia could have a look in to it. Thank you.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to when the actual question was asked, here's the diff. -- kainaw™ 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The signature was modified here. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The post was first made by 64.30.106.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (You can see it towards the top of this history page.) It was almost immediately signed by SineBot.
Then, for some reason, yesterday, 64.172.159.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) manually edited the signature to make it look like it had been posted by 64.172.159.131. And half an hour later, that IP edited it again to make it look like it had been posted by 64.172.159.130. There's no reason for this, and I'd scold that user myself if it weren't so pointless. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And I see that the IP 64.30.106.235 has been used by a self-confessed spammer; see e.g. this edit. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
@Steve Summit: User:APL did notice something that may have motivated this user to edit the IP. --Scray (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That is interesting, so the person who posted the question could very well be the owner of the auction. Changing his IP address to hide this fact. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
...all of which was actually rather unnecessary - it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether a computer you're trying to sell is actually any good, so you get an idea of whether that's the price you should be selling it for. Sadly, if this person thinks they'll increase their sales by doing that - they are sadly mistaken because the basic conclusion was that it wasn't worth the $112 that the auction had reached at the time because it has an 'iffy' hard drive and the cost to replace it would be uneconomical. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Could it not be that his ip address changed and he didn't want to confuse people, so tried to keep all the posts as though they had come from the same ip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indentation and Order of Responses

When I first came upon the Ref Desks about two years ago, the consensus seemed to be that each answer would indent one colon more than the previous one, and that every answer would stay in chronological order, with an "@" and a user's name, if appropriate. Now it would appear that more and more answers are either indenting randomly with none, one or two colons, and answers are being inserted at the place where a comment was being directed. I don't have a personal preference, but some agreement on the practices would be helpful for those of us reading the answers. It is easier to work out who is saying what in response to whom if we have agreed convention. If there already are standards, could someone direct me to them? Thanks // BL \\ (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the only right, correct, and decent method is to indent one level more than the post one is replying to. --Sean 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. I have occasionally been guilty of indenting under the immediately preceding post, even though I'm responding to an earlier post and my post should have the same, or sometimes even a higher, indent level. Even on this very post, there's a case for using the same indent level as Sean, because I'm effectively responding to Bielle's question. But I considered it more a commentary on Sean's post than a direct response to Bielle, so I indented it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Which of course means that the replies won't march off diagonally to the right as Bielle expects (although they are right now because I'm replying to JackofOz who happens to be replying to Sean who was replying to Bielle. Replies directly to the OP will be indented once, replies and clarifications to those replies will get two indents - and so forth. Generally we add in chronological order. However, occasionally - I find the need to reply directly to a question about one of my earlier responses after half a dozen people have added more stuff. In such cases, I interject my reply immediately after that query - and give it four more indents just to make it really clear that I did that. SteveBaker (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
However, now I'm talking directly to Bielle and without reference to whatever may have already been said - so I'm back with just one indent. SteveBaker (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Except that you're also referencing your own previous post, so it should be at the same or a greater level of indentation, which would also render the comment inaccurate. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? He was replying to Bielle's original post so I think the indentation was right. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Impressions of common practice in the past can be checked by looking at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives. For example, if we look at the Miscellaneous desk for April 15, 2007 [15], we find indentation and comment ordering very similar to what we find today, with nary an "@" sign in sight. The standards for the Ref Desks are listed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, although there seems to be a blind spot about indentation practices. - For what it's worth, my impressions of the de-facto standards match that of SteveBaker. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case my reply to Steve Summit in the previous section triggered Bielle's comment, I'll just explain that I was replying to Summit (actually, for some reason I was thinking he had not written the one directly above mine) so I indented one colon relative to the post to which I was replying. Intending to be specific (since I was idiotically thinking someone else had already replied) I used the "@" symbol to identify the person to whom I was replying. Perhaps my lack of attention caused some confusion, though this may just be happenstance. --Scray (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't writing because of anything you had done, Scray. I just became aware that I had no idea when to indent what, and thought, obviously incorrectly, that somewhere I had read something definitive on the matters. When I couldn't find anything at all on them, I asked the question. // BL \\ (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
buoɹʍ buıɥʇǝɯos ǝuop pɐɥ I ʇɥbnoɥʇ I - sʞuɐɥʇ. --Scray (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is a set of WP: guidelines on how to carry out discussions on Talk: pages - and that's basically the same practices we're following on the public-side RD pages too. I don't recall the exact reference to those guidelines though - and searching WP: domains is a pain because Google seems to ignore them. SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, there are Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation and there's an essay titled Wikipedia:Indentation. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So should these guidelines be pointed out in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines? (Just to make it explicit that the Ref Desk protocols are the same as the Talk Page ones.) -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you always should indent one more than the post to which you are replying, then only the OP should EVER post without any indent. I can't stand it when a response has no indent, because I then either need to do the same, or else indent, which makes my response seem like a reply to the idiot who didn't indent. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I unilaterally insert indents in situations like that. --Sean 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in requiring one indent for every response to the original question. It is obvious that any subsequent text placed after the original question is to be taken as a response to it. It just wastes a keystroke, time, and space on the page. In a thread which has had lots of responses, and responses to responses, if I see some response 20 posts from the bottom which makes some incorrect assertion, I will reply to that questionable post directly after it, rather than at the end, where it would be difficult for others (including the one I am commenting on) to find the post I reference. I also recommend notifying on their talk page the person I am responding to, so that have an opportunity to get in their 2 cents worth. Edison (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the purpose of the rules about indents is to increase understandability and legibility. This seems a perfect example of "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Phil_burnstein (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Created subsection because of OP concerns

Because of an OP's (IMHO valid) concern that his/her question was being lost in some discussion that arose primarily out of a subsiquent question by another user, I created a subsection and moved most of the discussion there [16]. The discussion itself was a bit of a mess with sone strange identing and reply ordering (the above discussion is of great merit here) so I used both the identing and a guess from the contents to decide what goes where but it's possible I made a mistake or someone was replying to both. Apoligies to anyone if you feel you reply belongs to the original question Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - there is really no problem doing that, so long as you use at least three equals signs for the new heading - and you're careful not to delete or significantly reorder the replies - that's fine. I can understand the OP's frustration though - when you ask a fairly mundane question - and a MUCH more interesting question pops out of the answers - we do all tend to get a bit carried away with the second part and the original OP gets a bit trampled in the process. Adding a sub-subsection is a great way to address that. SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible medical advise question

This question Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Do I have cancer? [17] seems to be a clear cut medical advice request which IMHO should be removed (or whatever) to me. But given the perpetual controversy over so many removals particularly those without any initial discussion and the complicated process which seems to be needed for removals which I haven't bothered to keep up with I'll leave it to others. Demonstrating why removal or dropdown box archival is often a good idea, I'll note that KageTora told the person the question was not something we can answer and RichardJ noted the question was unlikely to stay unfortunately this was not enough to stop the discussion. While I understand Kittybrewster was only trying to help and largely agreeing with his/her assessment it's still IMHO not a good idea since we have no way of knowing if there OPs explaination is complete or we are properly understanding it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the OP was clearly asking for diagnostic inference. Question and answers removed. Diff here. I also left notes on the affected non-IP users' Talk pages. --Scray (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good call, and thanks to Scray for the removal. (A perfect illustration of why the policy calls for us to preemptively remove these types of questions, by the way.) For reference, the actual required steps to handling a request for medical advice are quite straightforward; the rest of the things that one might choose to do are just bells and whistles which can be handled (if necessary) by other editors. The two compulsory steps, summarized from WP:RD/G/M#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice:
  1. Delete the contents of the thread – the question and any answers – from the Reference Desk. Leave the section header intact, and post an appropriate, concise, signed on-Desk explanation for the removal. Use of a suitable template like {{rd-deleted}} is strongly recommended.
  2. Post a brief explanation of what you did here on this talk page. Include a diff.
That's it — short and sweet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread of the week discontinued

I find the vehemence of the opposition (see above) to the thread of the week award bizarre and extraordinary. I was also greatly disappointed by the fact that discussion progressed for quite some time (a day and a half) before anyone bothered to notify me that my good name (which I take very seriously) was being associated with such vituperative terms as "bloody annoying", "irrelevent and intrusive", "personal bias, unasked for and unneeded", "censured", "Who gives a damn", "self-aggrandizement", "self-appointed" and "cruft".

The award was intended to do three things. First, to encourage Ref Desk contributors. Second, to help navigate between useful/funny/whimsical/clever threads. But more than anything, it was created to help a positive feel on these pages where editors often find negativity and ridiculous arguments, especially between the regulars. Given what has happened, this is sadly ironic.

Not promoting the award on the actual thread is ridiculous and pointless. Contributors to the thread and those who subsequently read it would have no idea that the award had been made. It would therefore fail the first and third of its aims.

The incredible hyperbole that accompanied the criticism makes it difficult to take it seriously, but on analysis I have found all arguments against it entirely specious - the award's very name ("Dweller's...") makes clear it's a personal decision and the awards page makes the less-than-official and less-than-100%-serious nature of the award entirely unambiguous. Furthermore, the 2-3 lines of text and small image hardly distracted or detracted from our work. Finally, the idea that dozens of other awards would proliferate is also plainly a non argument - it didn't happen in all the time since I created the award in August 2007, and if it did happen, we could work something out, through calm discussion. That is the way of Wikipedia.

However, it has never been my intention on Wikipedia to foment discord and this "debate" has been anything but calm. If my giving an award causes disruption, I won't give it. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well-spun, Clotho. Badly measured, Lachesis. Relentlessly cut, Atropos.
I always liked the award, though I hated the pic of the threads that accompanied it. Anyway, I'm sad to see it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I missed it when it was gone before. It had a certain je ne sais quoi that made it appealing to know which thread had won the DRDTOTWA. --132.216.22.150 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A sad outcome Dweller, I've thought your awards to be well thought out, cleverly commented and just the right touch of humor :-( hydnjo (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletionists 1 - 0 RD morale. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't label me a 'deletionist' - I find that personally offensive. I'm actually a strong inclusionist. This isn't about including or excluding content - it's about the appropriate place and protocol for handing out awards. Those terms simply don't relate to this debate. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't call you a deletionist. I'm referring to users who would prefer WP to have none of these cool things in the background (I didn't say you were one of them) - I wasn't even engaging in the debate. I made that comment in response to Dweller's decision to abandon his TotW award. Maybe 'deletionists' is the wrong word but meta:Deletionism does include "and other pages" in its definition. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I always liked it, so I hope you'll reconsider. --Sean 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My impression was that the vehement objection came from a single editor; just about all the rest of the debate was supportive. So while I sympathize with Dweller's decision (because I, too, would be demoralized after that blistering initial onslaught), I can't help but think that this is a very anticonsensual way of deciding something. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Steve for underlining underscoring that point. -hydnjo (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, SteveBaker's opposition was shared by Franamax, also a RefDesk regular. --Scray (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, both Gandalf61 and hydnjo both indicated that having the award on this discussion page would be acceptable - which I'd accept as a compromise - as I've indicated numerous times before - although I'd still prefer if it were on Dweller's own user page. SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Steve Summit. Dweller, you can see that a number of RD regulars support your award and find it to be beneficial and not disruptive. I think there is an overall consensus in favour of continuing the award. But at the end of the day, it's your decision. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It bears repeating that a majority does not a consensus make. My sense is that the parties (on both sides) did not really agree on the terms of the discussion. --Scray (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, consensus it not a majority vote, but it does not require unanimous agreement either. From Wikipedia:What is consensus?: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward. Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process." But this all becomes moot if Dweller (sadly) feels the whole issue has been made too contentious. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The important part of that quote is the part about good faith efforts to hear and understand. Sure, you can ignore a lone rogue voice if you've made every reasonable effort to explain to them why they are wrong. But right now, and throughout this process - despite repeated efforts on my part to make a good faith effort, I can't "hear and understand" because nobody (not even Dweller) will explain why they think I'm wrong - which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to be pursuaded and to join a consensus. Dweller is an admin and a bureaucrat on Wikipedia - this whining about the debate being too acrimonious simply doesn't ring true. Nobody survives as a useful admin for any amount of time if they can't stand some vigorous debat. Someone has to step up to the plate and debate this...without that, you DON'T have consensus - even with just one lone person opposing you. You MUST make a good-faith effort to explain to me why I'm wrong before you can simply ignore my contribution to consensus - that's what makes consensus different from "majority rule".
Not one single person has made any effort whatever to explain why the award has to be made on the public page rather than here on the discussion page or on Dweller's user page (where, IMHO, this belongs and would be entirely appropriate). All I hear is people telling me that they like the awards...well fine - if you like the awards, why doesn't Dweller simply make a sub-page from his user page - put the awards on there - and anyone who cares about them can put that page on their watchlist and they'll never miss another award. WHY is that not a great proposal? WHY does this have to fly in the face of common Wikipedia practice where universally - personal awards are made on personal pages and public awards are achieved through consensus? WHY?? Will someone PLEASE just tell me why this particular award has to be done differently from things like barnstars, Awesome Wikipedian days, Featured Articles and Photos? WHY? Give me one good reason. I've been asking for someone to do that since the very beginning...and so far, not ONE of the proponents of this award has even tried to answer that.
Actually - what I believe at this point is that all of you secretly realise that I'm 100% correct - you're just hoping that I'll give up on it so this annoying piece of frippery can continue. Well, until someone stands up - and properly debates this - I can't roll over and say OK - because I know I'm right - and you DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS UNTIL YOU'VE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT to pursuade me. If Dweller has no good arguments and wants to just drop it - then that's fine by me - but don't make me out to be the big bad ogre who caused this. I have valid concerns and strong arguments and nobody has a counterargument that they find worthy of typing out.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear. Well, I for one believe that I have made a good faith effort to "hear and understand" your point of view, Steve. But I see nothing in Wikipedia:What is consensus? that says I MUST spend time and effort trying to persuade you to change your mind. And as I know that the chances of you altering your stance on an issue on which you feel so strongly are vanishingly small, I see no incentive to do so either. We can simply agree to differ on this one. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this! You go to the trouble to type four sentences, effectively telling me to shut the hell up - but you won't write a single sentence to tell me why you think it's a good idea to have the award go on the public-side page rather than on the discussion page. You must have a reason. I'm trying to make a good faith effort to understand your point of view...but you won't explain it to me. You aren't debating this in good faith - and that's what the spirit and practice of the consensus rules expect of you. I'm not asking for a ten page essay - I just want the opportunity to get some kind of a grasp on why there is objection to this simple proposal to move the award off of the public pages just like every single one of the other personal-opinion awards in Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You have -- vertently or inadvertently, I have no idea -- played the standard bombast's trick of changing the argument in mid-stream. The question of where Dweller's (ex) awards ought to go is interesting but quite secondary. This debate did not start with that simple question, it started with you saying "Meh - actually, it's bloody annoying and I wish Dweller would stop it." It was that overblown negativity towards the very idea of the awards which effectively killed them. If you'd started out by saying, "Hey, I'm not sure Dweller's awards belong on the desks themselves, can we talk about moving them?", this all would have had a very different outcome. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve, a debate is two people talking. A conversation that begins with one person walking up to the other and slapping them across the face isn't going to get a very productive response. Yes, I'm an admin and a Crat and I take heat where I need to. I'm not prepared to cause disruption by persisting with the award when your response has been so disruptively vituperative. And you're still shouting even when I've conceded and said you get your way.

A final point: conversation also includes listening; if you trouble to read what I have written, you will find I have responded to the main criticisms you brought at the start of this very thread. --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary - I did read what you wrote - and what everyone else has written - and I've just read it again to be sure I didn't miss anything (I didn't). I'd very much welcome a two-sided debate - that's what I've been asking for since almost the beginning of this business. Your post above doesn't address either of the two key questions that relate to my fundamental objection to this: Why does it have to go on the public-side RD page? Why should this be the only "personal opinion" award in the whole of Wikipedia (AFAICT) that does that? I'm glad you decided to drop it - my subsequent responses have been entirely in reply to people pleading with you to reinstate it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I know you're a smart guy, and I'm sure you've thought about this a lot, but what you don't realize is that you're acting like a bully and a boor here. To suggest that "Nobody survives as a useful admin for any amount of time" if they can't stand people being incivil to them, is to completely duck the question of whether you've been incivil or not.
Also, you're just about 100% wrong when you suggest that "Actually - what I believe at this point is that all of you secretly realise that I'm 100% correct - you're just hoping that I'll give up on it." You are wrong, although it doesn't end up mattering, because it's abundantly clear that (a) you're not going to give up on it, but also (b) Dweller's award is dead and gone already, anyway. So please, shut up already. You got what you wanted. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My main reason for not going toe-to-toe with you, Steve, is that I avoid bullies, and I'm fairly sure you'll just shout me down, denigrate my logic, and write about 1000 words until I roll over. That's my admission. A part of me really likes seeing a fairly pointless good-natured thing (like Dweller's TOW), and that was my initial reaction. Not everyone shares the same aesthetic sense, so there will be disagreements, but unless harm is being done I can just assume good faith. I won't try to debate you on your terms - just too unpleasant a prospect (and sure, you'll believe that's because you're right - but it's really because you've been acting like a bully). --Scray (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The award was intended to do three things. First, to encourage Ref Desk contributors. Second, to help navigate between useful/funny/whimsical/clever threads. But more than anything, it was created to help a positive feel on these pages where editors often find negativity and ridiculous arguments, especially between the regulars. Given what has happened, this is sadly ironic.

Not promoting the award on the actual thread is ridiculous and pointless. Contributors to the thread and those who subsequently read it would have no idea that the award had been made. It would therefore fail the first and third of its aims.

The incredible hyperbole that accompanied the criticism makes it difficult to take it seriously, but on analysis I have found all arguments against it entirely specious - the award's very name ("Dweller's...") makes clear it's a personal decision and the awards page makes the less-than-official and less-than-100%-serious nature of the award entirely unambiguous. Furthermore, the 2-3 lines of text and small image hardly distracted or detracted from our work. Finally, the idea that dozens of other awards would proliferate is also plainly a non argument - it didn't happen in all the time since I created the award in August 2007, and if it did happen, we could work something out, through calm discussion. That is the way of Wikipedia.

Can we drop it now? --Dweller (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Reminder

As a reminder of Dweller's considerable effort, the awards are displayed below.

Award winners

Awesome roundup, and a classy thank-you to Dweller. These things are great! --Sean 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"considerable effort"?!?!? Oh bullshit. It takes about 30 seconds to recall a thread you liked and stick a pre-uploaded image and a brief zero-content message next to it. Compared to about 100 carefully thought out answers I provide each week that's a lot less than a drop in a bucket. That's just ridiculous. SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a little uncharitable, Steve. You may be confusing your desire to do away with such awards with whatever work is required to make them. Your work here gets lots of acknowledgment, as it should. Please don't be churlish when plaudits are given to others. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, i think the less awards there are the better. Awards are pretty meaningless when they are two a penny. The barnstars have already developed into a full time job for some people. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, can't you ever just let it be? You've almost single handedly relegated Dweller's award to obscurity so ... last nail in the coffin? Fine, last nail in the coffin. :-( hydnjo (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I think you've crossed the line into incivility and feel compelled (by that policy actually) to point it out to you. Verbal attacks are unnecessary, you're aggressively bullying others when Dweller's already retired the award, and criticizing good faith efforts of others. Please stop this rude behavior - you've made your position abundantly clear (and weakened it with repetition, if you care what I think). --Scray (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Steve has in the past outlined some reasons why his approach may at times seem somewhat brusque. He is certainly being aggressive, but several others have been treading that same path. I think a lot of the way Steve is speaking is that no-one has actually addressed his two substantive points. WP:ILIKEIT is rarely a cogent argument, and "you're just a big bully" doesn't help much either. Really though, this whole matter should just be dropped. Franamax (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because his approach *is* brusque, aggressive, and completely uncalled for? Who here has insulted Steve's contributions? Who here has tried to out-shout, out-talk, or out-insult him? I don't care what his argument is if it cannot be presented civilly; loud, long-winded, aggressive comments aren't worth reading, let alone responding. – 74  06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for a (logical) debate

In this thread, the questioner makes it clear that he is looking for a debate (he states that he wants a logical one). Most of the thread is a back-and-forth about the reference desk not being a place for debates and why shouldn't it be deleted and previous questions like it were asked and answered before... The same old meta-argument. I was just thinking - would it be best to collapse (hide) the responses with a note that the reference desk it not a place for debates? Then, the chance of the meta-argument continuing may go away - or not. Some people are very persistent. -- kainaw™ 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I support that. There have been more debates here recently, and they're annoying, and easy to get drawn into. My standard for RefDesk questions is what you could ask a real reference desk librarian. If you walked up to one and said, "it's so unfair that I can't say 'nigger'", there's not a lot of referring they can do. --Sean 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I collapsed the thread and pointed a link here. I figure that if everyone disagrees with me, it is very easy to uncollapse it. -- kainaw™ 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Good move. These constant debate/discussion type questions need to be better controlled and removed more often. thanks, 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a help desk section where sociology and anthropology would actually fit? (q moved from misc desk)

Feels strange to me that anthropology, in particular, is relegated to "miscellaneous" when language gets its own category. What's up with that?--Levalley (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...we have a science desk. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Who says anthropology is relegated to miscellaneous? I would say that both anthropology and sociology are social sciences, and as such would fit best under Humanities. --Richardrj talk email 06:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Anthropology is one of those integrative disciplines, and it depends on whether it's a question on cultural anthropology or physical anthropology. I agree that the former belongs with the social sciences, on the Humanities desk, while the latter is probably best placed at the Science desk. Perhaps social sciences and/or sociology should be added to the list of disciplines under Humanities (on this page). But people might even post a question on social sciences at the Science desk, say a question on empirical social sciences, because they might feel that the Science crowd are better at crunching and interpreting numbers. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional note to Levalley: We have a similar "problem" of pigeonholing with other integrative disciplines, such as psychology and geography, which are covered by several desks, but not explicitly featured anywhere. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not put it in humanities? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I already suggested that. --Richardrj talk email 09:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We get a lot more language questions than anthro questions. Simple as that. --Sean 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. The categories are not an attempt to actually divide knowledge up in a fundamental way, they are practical ways of dividing up the sheer volume of questions into categories that make enough epistemological sense that our answerers know where to look for things to answer. If some huge number of our questions ended up being about specifically the social sciences we could easily imagine adding a social sciences desk. But until that happens, there's no need. --140.247.252.236 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly to relegating Experimental psychology to humanities. That article says "Experimental psychologists regard psychology as a natural science; research is conducted with the help of experimental methods. The concern of experimental psychology is discovering the processes underlying behavior and cognition.." I have read too many journal articles in psychology with rigorous testing of theories using advanced statistics to see the area relegated to "Humanities: academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences" per the Humanities article. Painting, music, "theatre," and "the dance" have little in common with rats in a Skinner box on a partial reinforcement schedule. The Science article says "A broader modern definition of science may include the natural sciences along with the social and behavioral sciences, as the main subdivisions of science, defining it as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.[4] However, other contemporary definitions still place the natural sciences, which are closely related with the physical world's phenomena, as the only true vehicles of science." If we are here to answer questions, rather than make arroganty assertions that some field is "Truer Science," the broader definition should apply. Edison (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Social sciences are always going to sit on that border, depending who is doing it and how they are doing it. We need not try to anguish ourselves as to how to categorize them ("is psychology a natural or social science?" is a huge, majorly disputed question). We just need to divide things up in a way so that people know where they can ask them and get the best answers (which might vary on the nature of the question—there are psychological questions that are more "humanities" and those that are more "science", and one need not feel inferior to the other). --140.247.252.236 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This kind of question about new desks or realignment of existing desks comes up a lot - and there are two questions you have to ask yourself:
  1. Does the volume of questions on this topic come anything close to the numbers on the existing desks? If not - there is no justification for doing it.
  2. Will the same people be answering these questions? Or is it likely that lots of new respondants would come to answer them if a new desk were to be added? Generally, the answer is going to be "Yes" and "No" respectively - in which case, adding more desks just means that those who already respond to questions will just have to monitor more places...that's a no-benefit hassle - and it bears with it the risk that people who would otherwise have answered your question will not do so because they don't bother to monitor that particular desk.
For example - I look at the science desk most frequently and try to answer as many questions there as I can. If I have time to spare and there are no more science questions that I can help with - I hop over to the Miscellany desk and knock off a few there. MUCH more rarely, I look at the Computing desk - and no others. I suspect that all of the frequent contributors have something like that behavior. Hence, if you ask an anthropology question on some shiney new anthropology desk - I definitely won't be answering it - and neither will many of the other people here - even though we might be able to answer it. What you'll end up with is a small number of Misc-desk and Humanity-desk people monitoring the new desk and most of the questions going unanswered - even though they could be answered with zero anthropology knowledge by doing a well-informed Google search. I don't need anthropology expertise in order to be able to answer anthropology questions - but I DO need to be looking at the right desk or I won't see them.
IMHO, these questions probably belong on the Humanities desk (where I also won't be answering them!) - unless they are impinge on the "hard-sciences" in some way - in which case, the Science desk is the place. What we have now does actually work pretty well - I'd oppose changing it unless someone could put forward a strong case with actual numbers to back it up (eg "I analysed the questions from the last month and 32% of them were anthropology/sociology questions - ergo we need a new desk").
SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition of CENT to the RD

Hi all, just FYI, I've added the {{cent}} template to the RD headers for front and talk. It's based on this Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_discussions, ironically enough off of Cent. A lot of people don't care about various proposals, and policy discussions, but this (and the AN & ANI combo) I just added this to for their own headers are among the most-viewed pages we have. A lot of people are always saying, "We have a CENT noticeboard for these changes?" or "Where was the discussion for this, and why didn't I see it?" CENT is where they nearly all end up for non-trivial changes. This way, people that ARE interested, will be far more likely to see that such discussions are underway. Since the discussions aren't just for 'senior' users as well, using this on RD in particular is a great way to get people involved in the working of the site rather than just frontline editing. rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support that. The RD is generally used by people that aren't members of the community, they aren't going to care about the kind of internal discussions that take place on CENT. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it fits on the actual desks, which imo should be likened to articles. I don't mind keeping it on this talk page though. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There's no need for all the non-wikipedians asking questions to see this. There's already plenty of header they do need to read, without additional clutter. Algebraist 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to revert if needed. I was mainly after seeding the template on some high-profile pages and the bonus of drawing in newer people to go "under the hood" here seemed like a good long-term benefit. rootology (C)(T) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like it does weird things to the layout as well. It's over to one side, but not by enough for the table of contents to clear it.
Anyway, I agree with Tango that I'm not sure if it's appropriate. In theory the refdesk is for the readers, not the writers of the encyclopedia. If that's really true in practice, then the template should probably not appear. I'm not sure that it is, though. APL (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks HORRIBLE as is. It is NOT really related to most 90% ref desk questions. PLEASE rethink whether we need yet another thing on the header, much less one that has NOTHING to do with the ref desk. I don't want to overgeneralize here but if you don't edit on the Ref Desk PLEASE don't go around changing out its pages are structured. If we needed that sort of template we probably would have added it ourselves! If you want to put a plug to your project add ONE LINE to our existing list of things, if that. --140.247.251.231 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

REMOVE IT! REMOVE IT NOW! Serious it looks shit and I don't see a need for it. Maybe a small link to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion somewhere on the page, but that's enough
This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators. Grrrrrr .froth. (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Now the vandal that prompted it is long gone, it might be time to unprotect the header and its components. Algebraist 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "long gone", just retired.
Yes, any admin reading this, please restore this version and unprotect. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's removed. I don't think I'd be willing to unprotect the template myself, as it's definitely a high-visibility template. Those are routinely protected like this--but drop a request on WP:RFPP to get it unprotected. rootology (C)(T) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove the protection if I were you. I don't know if I could control myself, and I've tried so hard to be good and help out around here, I don't want to go back. It's high visibility and a very tempting target for any vandal, it should not be unprotected. 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
IIRC the template was unprotected until the Avril Lavigne vandal appeared. The Avril vandal has fortunately given up (I think) but it still demonstrated it was a bad idea to have the template unprotected Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it demonstrated anything, except that these pages can be edited for abuse, and that they can be protected. Before the disruption last May, the page saw little or no abuse, and was constructively edited, mainly by non-admins, particularly by froth, who has a lot of know-how and tenacity when it comes to working on these pages for layout. If we unprotect, we risk another assault (especially now that we have highlighted the hazard here). If we keep protected, it will be more bothersome to change and adjust these subpages. Right now, I'm for giving it a try. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Questions

What is the general opinion on the subject of moving questions from the top of one desk to the bottom of the same desk? Thank you. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That is called "bumping". It is generally considered a bad thing - very bad. There was a user who was made it a regular practice to bump his questions. He was eventually blocked from editing for that and other reasons. In general, if a question reaches the top of the page, it has had its time to be seen and answered. If there are still questions left to be answered, ask a new question. You can even link to the old question in the new question for reference. Obviously, you don't want to ask the exact same question. If it wasn't answered clearly before, it won't be answered clearly the second time. Use the responses from the first one to ask a better question. As a side issue - some people feel that discussions can last a long time, so we need to bump discussions down to give them longer to live. There shouldn't be any discussions. This is not a discussion forum. If a question has an ongoing discussion, then it isn't a request for a reference. It should be allowed to go away and, if necessary, be reworded as a request for a reference. -- kainaw™ 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Although many questions are just asking for article links, I think the more valuable service the RD provides is in-depth answers to specific questions poorly addressed in the article: discussions .froth. (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there are 8 days of questions on the Computing desk. If a discussion continues for eight days without coming to a conclusion, I find it far more likely that the discussion is just a discussion and not an attempt to locate an answer. Therefore, I see no reason to bump the question. If the discussion is continuing mainly because it was a poor question, the question should be asked again in a much clearer form, not bumped. -- kainaw™ 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not at all uncommon for the OP or someone else to post a new question that starts with something like, "The question above about sex with groundhogs got me thinking about..." and link to the earlier question. Beyond the issue a question becoming a discussion, it strikes me as a rather self-centred kind of thing to do ("My question is so important that..."). Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's why it bugs me so much. It carries the tacit assumption that this one particular question should receive special treatment. Sure, slowly scrolling up the screen might be good enough for regular questions, but my question needs to be the first question everybody sees. APL (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask because my question Here hasn't received any answers. Non to either say yes, or no. Any advice here on how to re-write for when it does disappear in to the depths of the inter-tewbs would be of great help. Thank you. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question is limited to be answered by those who move VBOX images from system to system. It is highly likely that many people read your question and simply didn't have any answer to give. There's no point in giving tons of "I don't know anything about VBOX" answers. -- kainaw™ 15:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I supose that is where my problem lies. My inability to relay the right question. My question is about taking a running system; a home computer for instance, And take an image of that hard drive with a program like R-Drive. Then using R-Drive's bootable CD to boot up a another computer, and restore the image taken on this other computer. The only problem is this 'other' computer is really VBox. And since this 'other' computer is searching, reaching, trying to feel for what it's world was not moments before, and not finding it's hardware, it's world, it falls in to a state of Kernel panic. My question is how to i tell the computer, the OS, that it's world, it hardware, what it has known to be true and what it has relied on for it's life, is about to change in every way, to prepare it to be plunged in to darkness. How do i give it a flicker of light to rely on? Something to grasp and hold on to. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While this hasn't been well discussed, IMHO there's a tactic acceptance of re-posting a question (mentioning the earlier question) after it has left the original desk, in another desk if there is good reason to suspect it may get a better answer there (e.g. someone has suggested it). This shouldn't be overused e.g. I suspect if someone decides to try every single desk they'll find themselves in hot water no matter how they argue each desk is a suitable forum and it also shouldn't be an excuse to choose the wrong desk in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been shown that reasking the question exactly (bumping it) would produce the same result. The question needs to be reworded such that it asks what the questioner wants to ask and not what others are reading. Bumping is still bad. Rewording a question to attempt to get an answer is not bad at all. -- kainaw™ 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide discussion removal

I trust [18] is non-controversial? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do the same as soon as he ignored my post. Algebraist 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearance of this very talk page

Unfortunately, there's no talk page for this talk page, but does it appear to anyone else that everything on this page is overindented by one? I mean, everything; comments, headers, the table of contents...the whole shebang. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I take it you mean everything's shifted to the right? Algebraist 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks okay to me... Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that you are scrolled down to the bottom of the page where you can't see the nagivation and tool boxes on the left. So, there is weird dead space on the left. I've always thought that it would be nice if the left menu boxes scrolled down as you scrolled down so you wouldn't need to scroll up to see them again. -- kainaw™ 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There are mistakes you can make while editing -- e.g., unclosed or improperly-nested HTML-like tags -- which screw up the indentation of the entire page (i.e. across section boundaries) BUT which show up differently or not at all depending on which browser you're using. So Someguy1221 might well be seeing a real problem which is invisible to the rest of us. Someguy, a screenshot might help. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not crazy, Someguy; I'm seeing it too. Could it be an IE thing? Deor (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed question

I often check my contributions page and click through to answers I've left on the RD, to see if anyone has commented or needs more information, etc. That, by the way, is a real pain in the ass when the links break after archiving, but I digress... This is an answer I left a few days ago. I was puzzled by what they were specifically asking for, but it recently clicked in my head that they had missed the "p" in "multiplayer". I don't have a better answer than the one I left, but I was curious if such a thing existed, so I checked back on the link, only to find it broken. I looked through the archive; I did a Google search and came up with nothing. The OP is a registered user, but has no user page or talk page yet, which made things tougher! Finally, I started clicking through each edit and found that the OP had removed their question completely. The guidelines touch on this situation somewhat, but it's basically within the context of removing medical-type questions or editing others' comments, not removing the entire thing. Do we need to spell this out? How often does this happen? I was much more perplexed than upset by this, but I don't think this kind of thing should be encouraged/allowed. Am I taking this too personally? Should I copy/paste the thread back into the appropriate archive? So many questions, so few brain cells to call my own! Matt Deres (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had many of my comments deleted. This one was very recent. A guy pitched a very childish fit on the help desk talk page. I told him that his argument was weak and appeared to be childish. He then pitched a fit that using the word "childish" was a personal attack. I then went through a lot of effort to explain on his talk page why his argument appeared to me to be silly and childish and that I was not personally attacking him. So, he deleted my comment and left a personal attack against me in the edit summary. That's just the way Wikipedia works sometimes. -- kainaw™ 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, doing something out of anger is one thing, but that wasn't the case here. I dunno if he thought he was supposed to do that or what. I'll just drop him a line on his talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you properly but if I do you can still check out User:Sammy Wilson even without a userpage and then click on user contributions to see the user's contributions. Alternatively you can go directly there Special:Contributions/Sammy Wilson. In terms of the more general question, removing someone else's comments on public pages without good reason is generally considered not acceptable. There are reasons why it would be acceptable, you've spelt out one's specific to the RD, removing OT chatter in talk pages is usually also considered okay. User talk pages are a different matter, the users who they belong to are generally given wide latitude in managing them and in particular are free to remove anything including legitimate warnings Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left him a friendly message. It was difficult to find him because when I typed in user:Sammy Wilson in the search bar, it came up with nothing (he hasn't made a page) and it also came up with nothing when I tried to search for the talk page (he never got welcomed). It didn't occur to me to jump to the version of the desk at the time of my reply (to click on the links in his name) because it didn't occur to me that his personal pages might all be empty! I probably would have thought about it more rationally except that I was trying to find a question and reply that had disappeared into thin air, so I was beginning to think it had been oversighted for some reason. Matt Deres (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So wait, are you asking, can a user remove their own question and the comments/answers attached to it? I would think the answer must be, "of course they can." --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Right; just like a user can remove their own contributions in an article or discussion. All contributions to Wikipedia are irrevocably released under the GFDL, meaning all submitters lose control of their contributions upon pressing the "Save" button. In practice, users are allowed great leniency in editing in their own userspace, but those privileges (or rights) do not extend to the Reference Desk. In short, I would treat the removal of a question and answers without cause as unjustified and revert. – 74  02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a question of copyrights, it is of basic rights of the user. If someone regrets their question or wants to remove it from further discussion or whatever, I see no reason to stop them from removing it. Ref Desk is not an article—it is far more personal than an article contribution, and I do think Right to Vanish should apply here. People should be allowed to withdraw questions if they do so desire. Ref Desk is not mission critical, and is more akin to userspace than it is articlespace. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Say an OP accidentally put in some information they didn't want public, or asked an embarrassing question from an Ip address or account which could be traced back. Or even simply didn't want the question there for some reason. Preventing the question removal is serves no purpose, and forcing it to say against the OPs wishes creates bad atmosphere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that the Reference Desk exists solely for the OP. Were that the case, we would have no need for a comprehensive archive. Answering the OP's question is important to be sure, but the Reference Desk also provides a rewarding experience for respondents (why else would they continue to volunteer their time?), a learning experience for other readers, a mild impetus to improve associated articles, and a resource for similar future queries. When removing a question without cause, the OP denies every other user the opportunity to benefit from it. There are, of course, situations where removal is warranted, but I don't believe "because I want to" should qualify. – 74  04:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Both views make sense. To a point, the ref desk is like project space, and it is considered bad practice to remove even only your own post from a discussion, if someone has responded or referred to it. If you wrote something embarassing and someone called you on it, it is better to strike it out, if you want to take it back. This practice mostly applies to registered, or at any rate more seasoned users though; here we get plenty of querents who otherwise don't edit WP, and they might indeed be worried about their IP, provided by SineBot, or other identifiers floating around forever.
If this happened often, I'd see a problem. Since it doesn't happen often, I agree with 98 and 82. We should respect the wish, and generally let it slide without further ado. The archives are listed and can be googled, for example, and we don't wish to cause harm or upset those we are trying to serve. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
But even one spool of thread removed question might lead to everybody removing questions!!!!—er, sorry. Still, if I spent a significant amount of time researching the answer to a question only to have it removed for no apparent reason I will be inclined to put it back. I'm reminded of a "public service" commercial where a girl posts her picture up on a bulletin board at school, then many of her classmates and even the janitor come by and take a copy (though the janitor appears to be missing from the currently-available videos – alt version). At some point, the OP has to take responsibility for posting embarrassing or private details on a public forum. (Which isn't to say that we shouldn't consider the OP's situation, just that I feel removal should remain a rare occurence.) – 74  00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem

April 19 got mistakenly archived so that it no longer appears on the desk.68.148.130.72 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On which Ref Desk ? StuRat (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any of the April 19ths missing. I wonder what 68 is referring to? The bot didn't complain about anything when archiving the 19th. There was a glitch on the Science desk on the 17th, but I fixed it by hand. I suppose it's possible he viewed the page just as the bot was doing its work, but I thought I had it do things in an order such that there was no window when anything could be missing. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. That may be what happened. April 19 was (uncharacteristically) archived between 14:15 and 14:40 yesterday (i.e., about an hour before 68 posted his complaint), and now that I think about it, the bot does do things in an order such that there are a few moments during which the newly-archived day won't be transcluded properly. I suppose I should fix that. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on 68's edits i think he/she (it?) is talking about the entertainment desk.64.172.159.131 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed off-topic discussion from question about someone not being able to stop watching porn

Diff

Steve - as one Englishman to another, isn't your stance on this a little harsh and perhaps a bit cold? Here's the thing - a guy (we think) has asked for our advice and because it is porn related, we "send" him to a doctor, who has probably had about 30 seconds of this subject in the lecture theatre at med. school. But if he had admitted to being an alcoholic, a drug addict, a kleptomaniac, an arsonist, a gambler, or a wife-beater, we would have given him? loads of links to non-wiki helpzones. I admire this person for opening up to us in his quest for help as I am sure that his "addiction" is very real and profound for him? My advice? Don't under any circumstance see a doctor. Instead, seek out a well-reputed behavioural psychologist/counsellor and really open up to him or her and put all your trust in them. You will be amazed at how cleansing and supportive that experience will be. Best wishes and good luck. Let us know how you get on. 92.23.141.132 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Our response has nothing to do with it being porn. Our response to any request for advice on treating a medical condition (which an addiction, regardless of what to, is) is always "see a doctor". The best way to find a "well-reputed behavioural psychologist/counsellor" *is* to go to your GP and get a referral. You can try and find one yourself, particularly if you know someone that has been through a similar experience and can recommend someone, but generally your GP is the best person to put your in touch with whoever can best help you. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Removed for a) being off-topic discussion of how to answer b) containing the advice "Don't under any circumstance see a doctor.". This sort of answer is one of the many very good reasons we do not offer medical advice. 80.41.9.84 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the thread being removed; it's spam for Xtube. "I just can't stop watching it" indeed. Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspected as much, but on the other hand see the possibility of a cry for help. On the one hand it sounds a lot like someone spamming all the wondrous possibilities of this service; on the other hand, someone actually having obsessive problems with it would likely sound similar (speaking as someone who's entered *a bit too far* into fandom at times, and come across as spamming when discussing how great something was). Maybe if we remove references to the actual service? (Censor 'Xtube' in their posts?) I'm loath to risk removing this entirely before the person has a chance to see the later replies, just in case. 80.41.9.84 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a policy of changing such apparent plugs to something like "[Popular Porn Video Site]". It wouldn't change the question at all, but it would make it read a lot less like an advertisement. APL (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Blue Peter putting black stickers over brand names on any products they use? It's very silly and pointless when they do it, but might be a good idea for us (the difference being that way accept contributions from the public). --Tango (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Humanities Desk: Has globalisation replaced God?

user:Kainaw has blocked this question with the comment:

Read the articles. They are two unrelated topics. If you are looking to spawn a discussion about economics vs. religion, this is not the place. You want a discussion forum - there are thousands of them on the Internet to choose from.

My opinion is: This may be a valid (but poorly worded) question for the WP:RD, asking if economic goals have replaced religion (not to mention patriotism, political credos and the like) as a "heaven" for much of humankind. There are numerous sociologists, economists, politologists, historians, theologists, ... who have addressed this question. I certainly do not agree that these are unrelated topics, they are basic believe systems / survival strategies for most of us.

It need not be a discussion of personal views (which, of course, has no place on the reference desk). However, a question on the prime motivations of humankind (in any era / in any culture) must be valid.

Clearly, there must be speculation in such answers, but it is not us refdeskers who speculate but a long list of respected thinkers / notorious crackpots in various disciplines. When a question deteriorates into a waffling forum of POVs, it is mainly the editors who are to blame (I agree with kainaw in this matter) by giving personal / non factual answers which are not sourced and are OR, at best. Not surprisingly, the OPs comes back with their personal views and the whole thread turns into an encyclopedic quagmire.

Of course, I am aware that such questions may be more difficult to handle, not least because the querent will have a POV (often without a documentable basis, but providing such is not their duty). However, they also are much more challenging to answer. The editor often discovers that all they have is "just a point of view", as well.

There is a handy "Cancel" button for answers like that at the bottom of the edit window :( --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First - I did not block the question. It is not possible to block a question. Second, it is always possible to base an argument on what a question might ask. In my opinion, that is a waste of time. Given 10 people, you will certainly get 10 different ideas of what a question might ask. Instead, limit the argument to what the question does ask. It asks if globalization has replaced god. If you have a reference that discusses how globalization has or has not replaced god, please feel free to link to it. -- kainaw™ 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I just checked and I am amazed that the question doesn't have two or three pages of discussion already. -- kainaw™ 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
For those interested in seeing what's being discussed, link here. --Scray (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no "blocking" of a question; kainaw is simply reminding the OP (and other readers/editors) that the Reference Desk is not an appropriate venue for speculation and debate. If any editor has an answer that follows the relevant guidelines then they are free to add it; similarly, the OP is welcome to clarify the question to avoid discussion/debate. This is (IMHO) a much better process than removing the question outright. – 74  02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's better (and more effective) than posting ugly rectangular warning templates with alarming colors on top of a question. Recently someone did that with a question where a debate had started, and the debate only intensified. We get poked by questions starting debates ever so often, occasionally a volunteer has had enough and will dismiss a question. I think kainaw did this inconspicuously enough, and he did use the hypothetical "if". His reminder wouldn't stop me from posting if I had anything notable or relevant to add. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-empting future respondents

Disclaimer: This is not "Get User:SteveBaker Month". I would have made this comment regardless of who made it or when it was made.

This edit was fine, until the last 2 sentences. "Guitar snobs" is an ill-defined term, and the OP would have no way of knowing if any future respondents fitted that description or not. Even if they did, their opinions are just as valid, and just as welcome on the RDs, as anyone else's. Nobody has a monopoly on the "truth" around here, particularly about such a vague concept as "a moderately good guitar". Advising an OP to ignore anyone who disagrees with what the writer thinks is the case is somewhat over the top, ego-wise. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Often, when answering a simple science/math question with an overly simplified answer, I will finish with a warning that some geek will come along and say everything I've stated is wrong and then provide an answer that is overly complicated and well beyond the questioner's understanding. For example, if you provide a chemistry answer using the general concept of electron shells, someone will come along and say that there are no shells and then go into long diatribes about quantum mechanics and string theory. Therefore, I cannot fault Steve for using a similar disclaimer. He simply should have left off the "ignore them" part, in my opinion. Of course, some RD snob will surely come along and disagree with everything I've said here. -- kainaw™ 00:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Which was the only issue I had with it. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear that Steve is offering this up as his own opinion (backed up with reasoning and anecdotes) and not just spouting off from authority. If I were said guitar snob I would have no trouble coming on and saying, "Well, Steve says this, but I think this," and would not be offended by the term. Similar things come up all the time on the computing desk, I don't think anyone minds, really. I think there ARE cases where you can pre-empt future respondents quite safely (common misconceptions, for example), and I think future respondents are COMPLETELY within their rights to disagree vigorously! No harm, no foul... let's not nitpick over our comments unless someone is actually bothered by it (lest we start worrying about self-censorship). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm much less concerned about other RD respondents and their feelings, but more about the OP. He/she came her looking for some opinions/advice. I don't quibble with Steve's opinion. I do quibble with him saying his opinion is (effectively) the only one worth having. The OP is from India (probably; maybe some other place where rupees are used), and would probably consider that Steve's advice is authoritative. It may well turn out to be, but not just on his own say-so. I think that respondents ought to have enough confidence and trust in their opinions to let their words speak for themselves, without (generally) any need for special emphasis such as all caps or bolded words (they didn't apply in this case), and certainly not the sort of bluster that Steve engaged in on this occasion. I could imagine that sort of language being used as a joke, in which case a smiley would make a lot of difference as to how it was received. There was no smiley, though, and it came across as a serious statement that could well have the effect of the OP doing what he/she was advised to do: ignore any subsequent responses. Which makes them somewhat redundant, and rather diminishes the value of the desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify why the OP being from India is relevant? --Tango (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's not all that relevant. I was thinking they chose to access an English-language international website rather than one in Hindi, Bengali etc, but of course many Indians speak English. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of a correlation between poor English and poor judgement... --Tango (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find that comment very offensive. Just because someone is Indian, doesn't mean that they will believe anybody who walks by (of course I realize that SteveBaker is much smarter than most people walking by). Thanks, Genius101 Guestbook 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for any unintended offence, Genius101. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing. A lot of people wouldn't. Thanks, Genius101 Guestbook 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Me, I read the "ignore the guitar snobs" comment as nicely tongue-in-cheek, with an implicit smiley. So it doesn't really bother me. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only user who was bothered by this case. I just wouldn't want to see this sort of thing become a regular occurrence, so I figured far better to nip it in the bud than wait till it caused real problems. I'll let it go now. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry - that was definitely intended as a tongue-in-cheek remark. I'll be sure to include an explicit :-) in future. My apologies to all of you guitar snobs out there. :-) <=== See! SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Double thread following unmarked crosspost to WP:RD/H & L

I happened upon and answered this query on the Language RD, then discovered it on the Humanities RD – where after RD Regular BrainyBabe had swiftly (= 15 min.; WTG, BB!) and appropriately suggested this query might be better handled on the Language RD, a lively and helpful discussion continued. I did a bit of crossreferencing and left a note on the OP's Talk page, but feel I might have somehow have handled things more effectively. Input? Advice? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You answered a cross query with cross answers. I would not have added additional information to the Humanities RD if I agreed with BB. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
My point, and request for input, wasn't about where I posted my response, but what to do when a thread develops where originally posted even after a swift suggestion to repost on another RDesk. Apparently this is an inexperienced OP who then double-posted rather than moving the query (i.e. by closing the query where initially posted, and possibly redirecting to the reposting on the second RD). I tried to use my best judgment with crossreferenced int. links so that future posters at either location would be aware of the other (and the relevant content at both); was just wondering what others would advise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Deborah for pinging me on this question, and apologies for the delay in commenting here. (I have been calming down after the celebrations for Mary Wollstonecraft's 250th anniversary; one visible cyber-result was that I helped get her on the home page in two places on Monday!) I think that questions should be posted to the most apropriate desk. If they are posted elsewhere, I think they should be moved, with a note and a link showing where they have gone. This ensures that the right specialists will see the question, the OP will get the best possible answer, and anyone searching the archives will be in luck. I used to do these regularly, and some (e.g. Julia) were kind enough to say that they appreciated my tidying up efforts. However, few joined in with my moves, and I lost heart. It actually takes quite a few steps to move the question and add the explanation and links ("Moved to the Language Desk [here] because..." and also "Moved from Miscellaneous Desk [here]". If a clever coder could figure out a way to semi-automate the process, I would be hugely grateful. Or, conversely, if we could establish a norm of behaviour amongst the regulars who hang out here and provide answers, that ill-placed Qs should be promptly moved, that too would be effective. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice?

If an OP states that s/he is addicted to a given behaviour, is it medical advice to suggest that they contact an appropriate 12 step program? I ask because 12 step programs, as fellowships, have no opinion regarding professional advice, and they do have reasonable success rates. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it probably is. It's suggesting a way of treating a medical condition that isn't "go and see a professional". Better advice would be to tell then to go and see their GP and the GP can recommend a 12-step program or a professional counsellor or various other treatments based on what is best for that person given all the details. We don't have the details or (in most cases) the training, that is why we don't give medical advice. --Tango (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - that's still advice on a medical matter. The problem is that you're diagnosing the condition (because you claim to know that the person is 'addicted' rather than just 'rather fond of') - you're then proposing a cure (the 12 step program). You could be horribly wrong about either of those things - perhaps this is just a small symptom of something much more serious. By persuading the OP go on this 12 step thing - you could be preventing them from getting treatment for something far more serious that you perhaps hadn't thought of because you're only in possession of 10% of the symptoms. So no medical advice please...even if it seems benign. Our advice is always supposed to be strictly limited to "If you think you have a problem - go see a doctor." SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the rule. MY query is when the OP specificly states that their problem is mental, not physical. I am asking only about a case where the non-professionals have a greater success rate than the professionals. BTW, IMO answering "Go see a doctor" is also giving medical advice. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, suggesting seeing a doctor is medical advice, it is an exception to the rule. Are you sure non-professionals have a greater success rate? Considering the professionals will often refer people to the non-professionals when appropriate, the non-professional's successes in such cases would count as the professional's successes. --Tango (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if non-professionals have a higher success rate, it is not our call to make. Livewireo (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk search function is broken

It seems to me there's a basic flaw in the RD search function found on each RD desk. Entering a search string searches Wikipedia and adds the prefix "prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives". But this won't find entries before the date when the structure of the archives changed. For example, this search, done by entering "bob dylan" into the search archives box, returns 36 hits; but if you remove the word "Archives" from the prefix, like this, you get 43 hits. I know the wiki search function is not great, but this seems like a relatively simple matter to fix. --Richardrj talk email 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

isn't that what the google string is for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really – that search string is not available from the reference desk page. In any case, adding bob + dylan (yes, I know it should be in quote marks) before that search string only returns the nine hits that were picked up by my second example search but not my first. --Richardrj talk email 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 H1N1/Swine Flu/Mexican Flu - Terminology.

We've had quite a few questions about the current flu panic...we're going to get a lot more. We have a responsibility to do this right. Sticking to our guns about "no medical questions" obviously applies - but I have another concern.

At least two or three OP's are worried about the safety of pork products and being around pigs because this is commonly called "Swine flu"...which is a completely unjustified concern (we have solid references for this fact).

In a few other places (Isreal, for example) they are calling it "Mexican flu" - which is probably a better choice because we often name flu epidemics after the place where they originated. But here in the US, that's just going to cause a HUGE problem with the already heated anti-Mexican-immigrant lobby - resulting in yet more xenophobia against people who've lived in the US all of their lives who are no more likely to be flu carriers than anyone else!

I'd like to suggest that we RD regulars try to adopt current UK and US government practices and call this "The 2009 H1N1 virus" - because calling it "Swine flu" or "Mexican flu" is clearly confusing the general public. Since pigs and pork products and people who happen to originate from Mexico are entirely unrelated to the spread of the disease from here on in - all we're doing by using inappropriate nomenclature is handing a bunch of people a problem they REALLY don't need right now - and making the general public take entirely the wrong set of precautions!

SteveBaker (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And you don't see a problem with adopting terminology that is likely to be different than what the question asker uses? Dragons flight (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. We should be using the terminology which is already most widely in use, and that is "swine flu". To be honest, it doesn't really bother me if such terminology is inaccurate or xenophobic. We have a responsibility to be clear to our users, and using a more accurate but less recognisable term is likely to confuse matters still further. --Richardrj talk email 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I have no objections to the "2009 H1N1 virus" terminology, but note that both WHO and CDC call it the "Swine flu", which seems to be the most popular term and there is no need to avoid it. However "Mexican flu" is used by only Thailand (a pork producer) and some ultra-orthodox Jewish proponents [19]- and should be avoided unless the subject of alternate terminology is being discussed.
In general, when answering questions on this "medical" topic, it may be better to guide the questioner to the appropriate resources hosted by WHo/CDC etc, instead of attempting our own OR. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually the CDC call it 2009 H1N1 now and the WHO Influenza A(H1N1) including in the links you provide. Don't you wish you got a webcite now since no one believes you? :-P (J/K of course) Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


We should use the common name, Swine flu, which is what most (all?) people will know it by and they will find it more confusing if it's not under swine flu. And just because, was it Egypt (who as it seems didnt have time to look at any facts before they) said kill all the pigs in the land? and Israel makes some paradox of a argument (I mean aren't pigs suppose to be unclean animals and bad, and now that they're shown in a bad light, thats bad? woot). We can't control common name, and I bet that our article being located at Swine flu won't have any effect on sales of pork, people all over the world will still know it as Swine flu chandler ··· 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I prefer North American influenza. It avoids the Mexican problem and who cares if people start hating North Americans? :-P The CDC can't seem to make up their minds BTW. Once they called it swine-origin influenza. (Perhaps they realised that doesn't really solve the problem.) Now they're calling it 2009 H1N1 flu. More seriously, I recommend the new WHO term influenza A(H1N1). Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The common term is "swine flu" at the moment, so I'd imagine that's the best one to use if one wants to be comprehensible. However, I'd suggest that responders use the term "swine flu (2009 H1N1 virus)" on first instance, and thereafter just use one term or the other. That way it's clear to the reader what is being referred to. "Mexican flu" I think is unacceptable until and unless the CDC or WHO term it such. You certainly won't get sick from eating a pork chop, and that needs to be emphasized too. However if your pen of live pigs starts coughing, no matter where they came from, take the advice of an ex-farmer - sell them to someone else. ;) Franamax (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to refer to it with a specific name to answer a question. If the OP asks about "Swine Flu" or "Mexican flu" or calls it any other name, can we not just provide references to expert sites while referring to it as the "the disease you are asking about can be explained as..." Or "This type of flu that you have a question about is detailed at this site..." Just a thought. There really is no need to keep using a proper name for it while answering a question by providing the proper reference. cheers, and remember to wash your hands. And that's not hogwash ! :-)10draftsdeep (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
My general rule is to use whatever terminology the OP used. I apply this rule to pretty much every question (unless the OP used euphemisms, particularly about sexual topics, in which case I will use the technical terms - I think it helps reduce embarrassment for the OP since they see their question being taken a serious scientific question and treated the same as every other question) and I intend to apply it to swine flu questions as well. Changing the name won't make any difference at this point, it is far better to explain that, while it is called "swine flu", the only relation to pigs is the strain's origins and pigs have nothing to do with it any more. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When to joke, when not to

I've been thinking about this for awhile. When is it acceptable for us editors to joke on the RefDesks, and when is it not? The case that drove me to write this is here, but it is not directed at the editor before me, as this sort of in-joke is quite common, I think. We have all sorts of people, not only the querent, who read each question and its answer. Our responses are archived, in theory forever. I think we have a responsibility to all our potential readers to provide clear and factual answers, and especially to younger readers, or less well educated people.

I try to keep in mind a couple of potential readers: a 12 year old girl in a small conservative town in the middle of the US or Australia, intelligent and curious but with few around who share her interests; and an 18 year old young man in a crowded city in China or Bangladesh, with a reasonable ability to read English and a desire to improve both his language skills and his knowledge of the world. Not only has neither of them ever travelled beyond a few hundred km from where they were born, they do not know anyone who has ever gone abroad, although a teacher they respect once went to the national capital. Their access to sources of information they trust is limited. They choose to come to us, or perhaps a Google search brings up our answer. I write for these two individuals just as much as I write to the original querent. And yes, I write for the amusement and edification of my fellow editors as well, and indeed for myself. But in my playing around (or showing off, if you are feeling less generous), I try not to forget those two possible readers, benevolent and eager ghosts looking over my shoulders as I type.

How can we ensure that our playfulness and fun, in voluntarily giving our time on these RefDesks, cannot be misinterpreted by our future readers? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are answering your question well. I think you are addressing it well too (whatever the difference might be). I think one important point that you are bringing out is that our jokes should never be "in" jokes -- understood by few. As I think you imply, we should be writing for the many, not for the few. All I would add to that is that we also have identities. There may not be any harm done in letting our identities slip. But this too is (should be) with mindfulness of those with very different identities. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I say jokes are fine in moderation, as long as you clearly state that it's a joke and then proceed to give a factual answer. Jokes on their own aren't helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If I am making a joke, I will usually (and many other editors will do this as well) make the text small. Like such. However, while the answers we give should be appropriate to the question, we shouldn't have to feel like we are censoring ourselves for the sake of our audience. Sometimes with all the seriousness, we need a little lighthearted break. Livewireo (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone once suggested to hold back with the jokes until the actual question has been addressed properly or seriously (provided the actual question is proper or serious :). Livewire, of course I agree that humor and lightening the mood sometimes are exactly what is called for, but I am constantly censoring myself, maybe not with an imaginary audience in mind (though I like BB's "over-my-shoulders" approach), but with regards to what I see as the desk's primary goal. Making knowledge accessible, spreading it around, improving the pedia, yada yada. If I didn't censor myself regularly, others probably would have shown me the door a long time ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I just found this in the guidelines, under "content and tone", :
"The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is:
  • relevant to the question,
  • not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and
  • not needlessly offensive.
Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement."
I can't believe I'm quoting our guidelines, but there it is. And it makes sense to me. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful responses so far. I can think of quite a few recent jokes that might very well be taken as a serious answer. I don't want to personalise this discussion, so I won't quote them here unless I'm asked to. My concern is that the tone of many (not most, but a goodly number) of our answers seems to be edging more towards jokiness than factual sourced responses. Caveat: I contribute mostly to Misc & Humanities, and it is of those that I am thinking; I am sure Science, Maths, Computing are more rigorous. I welcome other voices to this discussion, and would like to pose a further question: what should I do if I see a joky answer that I believe to be inappropriate for one of the reasons cited above: remove the answer to the talkpage here, as I would in a mainspace article? Leave it in place, and raise the issue here? Approach the editor on their talkpage and ask them to reconsider? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is egregious then comment here seems reasonable, with deletion if there's consensus for deletion. Otherwise, I think commenting on the user's talk page is most appropriate. Even if they don't immediately accept your point of view, civil comments can eventually get through. Pre-emptive deletion should be reserved for clear violation of policy/guideline, such as the prohibition of legal/medical advice. Just my cents. --Scray (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think what is called for is to interpose oneself between the person making the joke that is felt to be uncalled for or improper in some way, and the the rest of the readers, probably including the questioner. By which I mean that the aim should be to defuse whatever it is that is deemed to be problematic, and at the same time not to elicit a "defense response" from the person being criticized. That probably translates into criticism that is mild and understanding. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think in-jokes are acceptable (I usually use small text for them to emphasise that they aren't important and there is no need for people to try and understand them - jokes that everyone can understand I will sometimes write in normal text) - they play a useful role in bonding regular ref-deskers together (that's what in-jokes always do). We work better as a team that enjoy working together - in-jokes make answering ref desk questions more fun. Jokes should, of course, be a very minor part of a response, so don't spent several lines joking around if the OP has only received a one line response that didn't really answer their question. I think most cases where we joke around a lot and don't really answer the question are cases where the question can't really be answered, at least not on the ref desk (too open ended, for example), in which case there isn't a particularly great problem as long as someone does explain to the OP why we aren't answering their question. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
My personal standard is that a joke is acceptable iff it's made in the course of answering the question. -- Sean 76.182.94.172 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_58&oldid=1143356685"