Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 → Archive 75

Israel and the Palestinians, responses removed

rm'd some ill-informed opionion.—eric 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a reason for removal, you haven't built a consensus, and you deleted a large swath without differentiating the good from the bad, in any case, so I restored. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion seems civil enough, and on topic, so I think EricR meant well but got a little carried away. P.S. There are several different opinions. Can they all be ill-informed? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did differentiate the good from the bad. What i removed was a bunch of sophomoric shit from people who should be using Wikipedia to learn something rather than cluttering the reference desk with their worthless opinions. I left the good stuff.—eric 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Standard procedure would be to put a collapse-box around them rather than censoring. It's not your place to decide that the opinions themselves are "worthless", especially as they contradict each other, and it's unlikely that all of them are "ill-informed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't try to defend everybody else's posts, but will try to defend one of my own. In response to being asked about Palestinian claims to Israel/Palestine, I replied with the following:
(ec) On the basis of Muslims having had control of Israel/Palestine, from 630 AD - 1918 (with the exception of short periods during the Crusades), from the conquest by Mohammed to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WW1. See Palestine#Islamic period (630–1918 CE).StuRat (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Now, I tried very hard not to include opinions, and did provide facts and links to Wikipedia articles, where appropriate. In what manner was my post "ill-informed opionion" (sic) ? StuRat (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you expressing an opinion that the conflict is one of religion, rather than property rights? Franamax (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to show that the Palestinians (who are distinguished from their fellow Semitic people, the Jews, based primarily on religion) have a historic claim to the region. How could I do this without mentioning religion ? Do you consider this to be an ill-informed opinion ? StuRat (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is an opinion, it is a widely-held and notable opinion, one of which you could find much evidence in many sources. And why would you leave religion out of it anyway? One one side are the overwhelmingly Jewish Israelis and on the other are the overwhelmingly Muslim Palestinians, and both sides have incorporated religious justifications in their claims at one time or another. —Akrabbimtalk 03:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes think that the UN should take over the whole Palestine region and convert it into some type of tourist attraction. Instead of Disneyland, it would be HolyLand. Everybody would get rich and everybody would be happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That idea was proposed in 1947, in United Nations Security Council Resolution 181, also archived on the United Nations website. I imagine that in the United Nations, there's an equivalent to our WHAAOE: "UNHASCROE" (United Nations Has A Security Council Resolution on Everything). Nimur (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Humanities

Not sure where to put these comments from the Humanities desk , but this seemed a better location than where there were at the question on Chinese cooking oil.

Thanks to that writeup, I have now sworn off cherry yogurt. —Kevin Myers 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
What's that about vaginas? HalfShadow 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to move back or elsewhere. --68.28.104.225 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary

Increasingly, I'm seeing that website used for word-origin lookups, as with word-origin questions raised by one or more users mentioned in a previous section. My question is, what is the consensus on whether it's a "reliable source" or not? Probably usable in the ref desks, which are not articles, but is it suitable for an article citation if a word's origin is needed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reviews and Reputation section in our article seems to say that it is. —Akrabbimtalk 03:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I noticed that the guidelines at the top of the Language desk only mention one external source, Google, which stands to reason. But I wonder if the OED (maybe "both of them") could be in a short list of reliable, useful external sources at the top of the page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs

Bugs has continued to edit other editors' posts critical of him (my snippy collapse note, in this case): [1] Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm supposed to know ahead of time whether someone will be offended by something I say, and meanwhile I'm not supposed to be offended by anything. Yes, it was snippy. So I neutralized it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't a signed post, so the usual rule about not editing other's posts doesn't apply. I agree with Bugs that things like that should be neutral. --Tango (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not editing a signed post. Changing a collapse-template is a reasonable edit, and in this case, it looks like it was worthwhile to make that title more neutral. Nimur (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, would you mind explaining this? Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like a legitimate question to me... -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a can of worms to me, and I can understand Bugs' decision to hide the can opener while answering the question, even if I'm not sure whether or not that was the best way to do it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't. I'm going to restore it. The poster is not a native English speaker and has asked many legitimate questions on the Language desk about unusual turns of phrase. This is just another of those questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that's true. The poster has asked many questions about words and phrases used on Wikipedia talk pages and user talk pages, usually about controversial issues, in a way that has made me wonder (long before now) whether it's a troll trying to draw attention to the issues under the pretense of asking what a word or phrase means. +Angr 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The Ref Desks are kind of troll bait - it's easier to be an ass here than it is in mainspace. not sure what to do about that, though. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Angr. That is simply not accurate. As of this writing, his or her questions currently on the Language desk are for the meaning or etymology of the words "mortar" (no link), "cross purposes" (no link), "WP:ACB" (link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "water under the bridge" (no link), "dirty laundry" (no link), "ekhm" and "red spots" (link to the Language desk), "some serifs" and "server-fu" (link to the Language desk), "Storensay" (link to some external site about marketing plans), "kiss and tell" (no link), "the Curry incident" (link to Wikipedia biography controversy), "Prussiate" (no link), "FUR" and "&c" (link to a Vincent Vega diff, asking about edit summary terms), and now "lies-on-the-ground" (link to a user talk page). I see those as 16 innocent questions from a person whose first language is not English, and none of those has a link to a controversial article or talk page. Even if there were links to such pages, we should answer the questions anyway; there's no rule saying we shouldn't help non-English-speakers who are trying to make heads or tails of an on-Wikipedia controversy. The 17th was when he asked whether the word "girth" in our Charles the Fat article referred to poor Charles's weight, penis length, or penis thickness, which I would say is pushing it; but I think a 16 to 1 (or maybe 17 to 0; there; I said it) ratio of honest questions makes it clear he's not "usually" drawing attention to controversial issues. This person is not a troll. (PS: I apologize to Bugs for removing his edit impugning the poster; I should have just removed Bugs's hat tags.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If the questions are about trying to make sense of Wikipedia itself, shouldn't they be going to the WP:Help desk? The help desk routinely directs questions here, why doesn't it go both ways? Franamax (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The questions are language questions. Probably the best place to ask them are the talk pages of the people who posted the items-containing-the-unusual-turns-of-phrase in the first place. But I think the Language desk is an acceptable place to post, you know, language questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the OP was sincere, he was merely asking what a word meant. How the OP found that particular obscure item is open to conjecture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
We know you like to sleuth out the next Jeffrey Dahmer and so forth, but it's irrelevant what the OP was doing when he or she was inspired to ask a language question. He or she isn't disrupting the desks. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason I posted the box was because the question had to do with a personal attack on another user. The personal attack was not made by the OP (as far as we know), but it's still an attack. The target can't do much about it, since he's been blocked. But if you think personal attacks are OK to stand visible, well, that's your viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Tuttle, you take the analogy too far. There is reasonable questioning on whether Bugs wishes to apply personal standards of morality to RFQ's. There is reasonable questioning on whether Bugs has a kneee-jerk reaction to any anonymous editor as being somehow privileged. But Dahmer-hunting? No. Some of that paranoia is well-justified, in fact the "objection" cited in a thread above was placed there by ... well, if you want to get into that part of en:wiki, there are lots of reasons for paranoia. I'm not saying BB's way is right, but if you tone down the mass-murderer analogy (say to just real-life stalking, which I can demonstrate easily in other cases), oh yes, there is cause for concern. We have to strike a balance. Franamax (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think one problem is that many of the editors here have (hopefully) never had to deal with wikistalkers, and maybe only minimally with wikivandals, which is not my good fortune, and is maybe why I tend to see things from a little different perspective than they do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lies-on-the-ground" was user Mbz1's personal attack against the user "Factsontheground". Those two are part of an ongoing feud that has been discussed at some length on WP:ANI. If you still think that question needs to stay on the ref desk, so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that Mbz1 has since answered the OP's question with an implicit denial of where he came up with the expression, but it's as obvious as the nose on yer face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm ever so slightly on BB's side on this, though not perhaps the best of approaches. There seems no other way to answer the question without getting into what contrasting language means and why the contrast is pertinent - which gets into the whole Wikipedia mess, which is not our mission to describe here. Perhaps the better response would have been "it's a play on words with 'facts on the ground'" with the quoted phrase linked, then if the oh-so-innocent followup was "but why did they do that, isn't that wrong?", re-assess then? I can't really fault BB here though. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It was perfectly possible to answer the question without delving into the question of whether it was, in some other place, used as a personal attack. This was just one more example of Bugs' addled omniscience & his desire to demonstrate same to all. I've spent the evening reading most of Bugs contributions to the desks. And what valueless disappointments most of them are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, smart guy, what's your answer to the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No answer yet. I'm assuming he's researching the matter. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Christ on a fucking bike, Bugs. Can you not see how twisted you're becoming? Since when is it ever appropriate to attack anyone for failing to answer your question within nine minutes? In any event, the answer was suggested by Franamax. "Lies on the ground is most probably a variant of the more common 'facts on the ground' and may be taken to mean the discovery of falsehoods (lies) in an area of study (the ground: e.g. within a given body of work)." Or some better articulated variant of that. Notice: no requirement to delve into its use as a personal attack. Gosh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
That first sentence is highly offensive, and I think you should strike it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Guess what? I'm highly offended, and mortally sick and tired of this bugs diarrhoea show. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
YHBT. HAND. HTH —Steve Summit (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
By who, though? Possibly by Tuttle, for bringing it up in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Don't I know it. Still. It's nice to take that phrase out for a spin every now and again. And yes, it did, thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your position. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Then you are free to stop participating. After you've kindly struck your stuff that I find offensive. As Jack argued, if I find something you say offensive, then it is, even if you think it isn't. And vice versa. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, PLEASE, Bugs!!!! This is a new low you've sunk to. Of all the people in the world entitled to lecture others on correct behaviour around here, you're not anywhere remotely near the top of the list. Or if you like, not even remotely in the ballpark. More like on an entirely different planet. Please do not quote the Gospel According to St Jack only when it suits your argument against others, when you have so pointedly and obdurately refused to abide by it yourself. There's a word for that sort of thing. -- 202.142.129.66 (Jack of Oz) (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's called "you (Jack) have the right to be offended, and I (Bugs) do not." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that's a cynical perversion of what's going on here. The point is this: If you refuse to acknowledge the offence you cause others - and you have so refused, repeatedly - how can you demand others do the same for you? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
What's "going on here" is that a few of you made Everest out of an anthill. This followup comment[2] was one of the most outrageous, hyperbolic, stupid-headed comments I've ever seen, in reaction to such a small thing. And by an editor who claims to have been around for 5 years but in fact was only around for 4 days at the time. I'll say this again, maybe real s-l-o-w-l-y so you'll understand: If you're repelled by menstruation, that is your problem, not mine. Maybe if you're in junior high school, you're fascinated by it. But most of us over the age of 21 don't think of menstruation as any big deal. It certainly can be an annoyance for women, with the flow, and the cramps, etc. But it's not "gross", nor is it "sacred". It's just a biological function, a part of the reproductive system. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh fer chrissake Bugs, you really are getting silly now. Once again, the "editor who claims..." is well known, you should be able to accept that without rancour. You should have been able to spot them yourself instead of playing the game through for your own benefit. Just ask for a block next time, you don't have to stop the record when everyone is farthest from the chair. And if you want to invoke those of "us" over the age of 21, please do exclude those of us who find it inappropriate to make locker-room jokes outside of locker-rooms we haven't been in since high school. You're free to overlook those many people who may be quite sensitive to stupid "cherry yogurt" jokes, assuming that you have a profound insensitivity to any segment of humanity not viewed within the mirror in front of you - but society actually inhabits a spectrum. I'll follow up with you elsewhere on just how "I'm fine with it, everyone else should be too" is totally insufficient. Meanwhile, your tit-for-tat I'm offended/you're offended shtick is getting old. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your second and third sentences, so I can't comment on that. Beyond that point... a block for the IP? For what? For reacting in a childish way to a harmless joke? No. Someone then deleted the whole thing, and that was OK. The problem is that that wasn't enough - one after another editor had to come here and sling as much mud as possible. Maybe I'm just lucky to be married to a woman who has always had an open and casual attitude about her menstrual cycle. Maybe others have not been so lucky. But in all this verbiage, I have yet to see any explanation that justifies that one user's "ooo, grody to the max" comments. It's something I would expect to see from a junior high schooler who has no experience with women in any way, shape or form. So I'm assuming I'll have to assume that situation from now on, and hence (hopefully) not say anything that might offend anyone's sensitivities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The actual question was "What is lies-on-the-ground?174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)" My immediate response was, "It's a personal attack", which is obviously true despite Mbz1's denials since then. However, forgetting that, it's also a play on words that's not a general English idiom (is it?), it was just made up on the spot. It's hard to tell for sure what the OP's question actually is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I suppose the question might be then, why did you interpret that as needing a en:wiki-specific explanation when it was on a Language reference desl? Franamax (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the IP wouldn't know about it unless he were following that particular case closely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if your assumption is true about where the OP saw the phrase, Bugs, and it may well be so, there is much that I read on WP, for example, and about which I might have a question that is at worst, tangential to the central issue and at best a real query about meaning. It would seem to me that, if the OP were trolling, then the request for an explanation would have come somehwere in the middle of that specific bun fight, and not on the Ref Desk, far removed from the drama. I think you have assumed bad faith too quickly. And as for the first sentence "Christ on a fucking bike" being offensive, I don't find it so, so the count is even at the moment. Bielle (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't accuse the IP of anything, I just wonder about it. The reason I boxed it was because it had to do with a personal attack by Mbz1 on Factsontheground and I thought it best to try and end it there. Apparently, I thunk wrong. Meanwhile, according to that earlier megillah, plenty of folks didn't find my yogurt joke to be offensive, and even found it funny, yet I was still yelled at for it, on the grounds that some found it offensive, therefore it is, and the "count" doesn't matter. Let's put it a little more bluntly: Every Christian that I know, likely would have found the yogurt joke funny, the way I phrased it, painting a mental picture instead of coming out and saying it; but likely would have come away from Simon's comments concluding he's a vulgar lowlife. Whether that's true or not, that's the impression he would give to many people. Yet in the real world he might be the nicest guy in the world, as might I. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
And in my world, "vulgar lowlife" is likely to be ascribed to the maker of the juvenile comment about a standard self-care option for women, and the inventive interjection applauded, or at least greeted with a grin. As we are unlikely to have had the one here on WP without the other, perhaps we should all just stop. Bielle (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That's why I put the original-original comment, which started all this ruckus, in small print, to telegraph that it was not altogether serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
People are offended by different things, for sure. I come from a well-educated family that does not use obscenities at all, except maybe in extreme circumstances, like if the house were on fire or somebody was in the throes of a heart attack. The yogurt joke, the way I told it, would have evoked a lot of laughter from everyone. By contrast, someone saying the stuff "Simon says!" would likely be met with stunned silence and probably a polite-as-possible-under-the-circumstances request to leave, ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, do you have any objection to such future "boxings" being unilaterally reverted? The onus would then be on you to open discussion at talk. And can you avoid bringing wiki-specific dispute elements to the RD pages unless they are part of comfirmed or suspected sockpuppet cases? Franamax (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No objections to the unboxing, as that's merely an editorial judgment. As was changing a snippy heading to a neutral one. In the case of that particular question, I didn't see any way to get around the personal-attack part of it without saying something about it. The OP asked "What is this?" and the correct answer is, "It's a personal attack by Mbz1 on the user Factsontheground, who are both part of an ongoing multi-user feud and are currently under an interaction ban from each other." It also happens to be a play on words. But it wouldn't be there except for the conflict between those two users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The particular cases that were cited at the beginning of this thread are complicated, but in general, I think we could all stand to use fewer of those collapse-box and "this discussion is closed" templates. Those are extreme measures, and it seems to me that they can end up igniting just as much drama as they are presumably intended to defuse. Let's reserve them (like outright deletion) for the very most clearly offensive questions or discussions. Remember, if a question or comment is merely questionable, it's always an option to just ignore it. Steve Summit (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. Boxing it up was following the lead of others who have done so, and silly me, I thought it was an acceptable approach. I'll leave the deletions and the boxings to others, unless something is obviously a gross violation of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't mind Bug's jokes or conversational tone (as long as he waits until after a good answer has been posted), but if one editor is causing this much disruption on a repeated basis (regardless of whether the complaints are justified or unjustified), then that editor should consider toning it down for the sake of the project because it's a waste of the community's time. We all have better things that we could be doing with our time.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everyone's time, including yours and mine. I was thinking something like that earlier, that every minute spent yelling on this page is a minute not spent doing other work on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I take that as a personal guarantee that you will increase the number of references you provide on the desks, and decrease the number of joke posts? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll consult my lawyer, and if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer. OK, I'll give you my personal note for 30 days. If I haven't complied at the end of 30 days, you can keep the note. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect problem

If I'm on one of the individual ref desks and click the Discussion tab, I arrive at this page, but not at the current version. Which old version I get seems to vary from desk to desk. Can this be fixed, please? (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just selected a ref desk page at random, hit the discussion tab, and your question was right there. I think there was a "server lag" issue earlier today, as I noticed some of my changes were not showing up in the watch list right away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If the problem persists, and you've already done the standard stuff such as clearing cache, you might have to take it to the Village Pump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a server lag problem. That wouldn't account for a lag of about a week; because that was sometime how old the version of this page was that I was arriving at, of recent days. But, just like by the time you go to the doctor the symptoms have all mysteriously disappeared, this problem seems to have fixed itself since I posted the problem. And I did check just before I saved my post. Oh, well. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A little hard to remember now, perhaps, but do you recall any specific ref desk this was happening to? Is it possible the redirect had been altered to point to some specific version? In any case, if it happens again, maybe the bit-pushers at the Village Pump will have an idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
I've noticed the same thing several times lately, but only when viewing while not logged in. A friend who never logs in has related a similar experience (I think on a regular encyclopedia page, not on a Wikipedia-namespace talk page.)
I know that Wikipedia caches the rendered versions of pages aggressively (see Squid (software)). I don't remember what mechanism is supposed to invalidate the cached versions when they're edited out from underneath. (Presumably there is such a mechanism, though, as the encyclopedia is of course being edited all the time!) Similarly, I don't know if there might be something going wrong with the mechanism lately. But if there is such a problem, logged-in editors will never notice, because the pages we see can't be usefully cached, since they're personalized with our own username and talk page tabs (etc.) at the top. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is that also connected with going to save an edit and seeing "loss of session data" pop up? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Steve, come to think of it, the problem only seemed to be happening when I was not logged in. I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned it. That'll teach me to neglect my duties. (But heck, is it my fault if my clients choose not to show up for their appointments?) :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen this problem a lot and I seem to notice it the most when Wikipedia has logged me out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've experienced this problem (as an IP user) as well. Force reloading the page (i.e. shift-clicking the reload button in Firefox) yields the current talk page version. -- 174.21.224.236 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned user ?

Hyopocrit deleted a response here, with the comment "User is banned": [3]. This user has only made contributions for the last 2 days, and they seem reasonable: See 99.56.136.197. Are they suspected of being a sock-puppet of a previously banned user ? If so, which one ? StuRat (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging by this diff by Hipocrite, it's User:Nrcprm2026. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you ask Hipocrite? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A cursory check of the user's contrib history is also a big clue. The first edit is [4] where he?'s clearly not new and is thanking someone (as obvious from the new section title) for reverting the removal of [5] Special:Contributions/99.191.75.124 who was blocked on 1st March as a sockpuppet of above user; and in the same message asking to consider reverting [6] which involve the removal of multiple comments from similar IPs again all identified as Nrcprm Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a slightly annoying approach that some admins take, to block a "sock of a banned user" without directly specifying who the sockmaster is. That is probably in the interest of WP:DENY, but it leaves a bit of a mystery in its wake. Although it is also sometimes used when it's virtually certain that its a sock, but its not totally certain just who the sockmaster is. But the best bet is to ask the admin, as Ten recommended. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Always obey the Ten commandment. Zunaid 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

header color clashing

The non-standard link colors in the headers at the top right of individual reference desks really clashes. Couldn't these be the same color as every single other link? :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, are we just going to redesign the whole set of pages, here? I'll take a look at it. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what you're seeing - can you point me to a particular link on a particular page? --Ludwigs2 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing "skip to bottom", "Computing Desk", "Entertainment Desk", etc.. These should be inheriting the site-wide link colors. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. the navbar colors are specified here - Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/deskopts - and we can ask to have the color setting removed which should reinstate the default link color. I need to check that it won't break something, though (I might have to figure out what the default color is and set it to that - I don't like the way the option is set up in the template). let's see if there's consensus for this first, though. anyone else? --Ludwigs2 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It should really be inherited. It won't match other themes either unless it is. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question.

"In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question." - it's right there in the guidelines.

So why am I seeing this?

Can African hunting dogs be bread with normal domestic dogs. Can Australian Dingo's be bread with African hunting dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
...
If you ground all those dogs up and put them in a pan with some dough, then cooked for an hour, then yes, they could all be bread together, regardless of how they've been bred separately. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Crumbs! Richard Avery (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the investment alone would take a lot of bread, man. And if you can't make the payments, you're toast. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny...maybe - but not allowed under our guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the small-print feature not working on your PC? :) Instead of griping about it, just delete it. Don't box it up, that only calls attention to it. Just delete it and briefly explain in the edit summary why you're deleting it: "off-topic" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, if left to stand, the next reader to come along might think it's valid. So you should replace the sarcastic comments with, "The proper spelling is bred." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Steve. Don't poke fun in the first place. Then we don't have to get bogged down in interminable discussions over whether it was more appropriate to delete, or box, or edit, or poke second-order fun at people whose "small-print feature doesn't work" (not), or whatever. Steve Summit (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What about the interminable discussion about whether to fix the original question's spelling vs. saying something about it? If someone says "bread" and they mean "bred", what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think consensus has been established that we shouldn't correct other people's spelling (or other) errors directly in the post. If you feel it is important you can point it out, non-flippantly, in a separate post, as you suggested above. Usually it's not necessary, but sometimes it might be helpful to the original poster. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I zapped the off-topic stuff (in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, since Baker forgot to point out its source) and added a polite correction comment for the spelling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sluzzelin's right. Recent discussion here. Unless misunderstanding by others is quite likely, it's really not necessary to comment on (much less edit) a simple spelling error in a question. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In this particular case, misunderstanding by a non-native speaker is certainly possible, and the followup comments don't explain what the problem is, they just make assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There's also a guideline on not editing the posts of others. Correcting spelling in the original post could possibly change the meaning and also will make it less apparent why the OP's searches might have failed. Also, if they search for the Q using the wrong spelling, they may not find it and assume their Q was deleted. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
So correcting it by commenting on it, as I did, leaves the original question intact, so if the OP searches under either "bread" or "bred", he'll find it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally cannot type accurately, and have to check the spelling of words where a single or double consonant have the same sound, and occasionally confuse words pronounced the same but spelled differently, and find it annoying if someone ridicules rather than just saying answering the question or qualifying the answer with "Assuming you meant capitol rather than capital, or marshal rather than marshall, the answer is..." When the questioner spells "bred" as "bread" there is no harm in gently correcting as in the latter examples. "Assuming you meant "bred," ...." so they are less likely to go through life repeating the misspelling. Edison (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
A question asker might not understand the convention of small text=="hilarious" humor reply. It is a bit odd. APL (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, small is used to mean "not an answer". Some of those are jokes, others are side discussions, etc. I try to add a smiley to jokes, in cases where they aren't absolutely obvious, as I did in this case. Also note that some jokes, puns, etc., also contain valid answers, in which case they should be regular-sized text. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Another problem with small text is that it does not show up in all browsers. In IE-whatever-mine-is, no small appears on screen, so I can only tell for certain if something is not to be taken seriously by going to the edit screen. (On the other hand, the IP bot signatures are enormous on my screen.) This is fine for those of us who spend enough time here to have worked out the problems, but would not be helpful for newcomers who are the ones most likely to misunderstand in the first place. Bielle (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, you mean that small text shows up the same size as regular text, right ? StuRat (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes; I see the confusion I have created. Apologies. The "small" text shows up as normal-sized text in my browser. (The bot-signed signatures on posts, however, show up as extra large.) Bielle (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You might try using View + Text Size to change the overall text size, that may make the small text distinct. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
My standard setting is "larger". If I drop to to medium, the "small" appears as small but is about 6-point text, and the rest of the text looks to be about 8 or 9 point. I can't really read the screen at those sizes. Your idea works technically, which is new information for me and may help others, but doesn't work practically for me. Thanks for trying. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You might want to make everything bigger by lowering your screen resolution (Start + (Settings) + Control Panel + Display + Settings Tab). Or, just use a better browser, like Firefox. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of desks

Is there any particular rationale for the order in which the desks appear in the side menu, and on the project page:

  • Computing
  • Science
  • Mathematics
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Entertainment
  • Miscellaneous?

Computing was the last to be created, yet gets pride of place. That would make sense if the rest were in alpha order, but they're not. Miscellaneous is at the end, fair enough. But the remainder - why that particular order?

I can see sense in grouping Computing, Science and Mathematics; and grouping Humanities, Language and Entertainment. But within those groupings, shouldn't alpha order apply - Computing, Mathematics, Science; Entertainment, Language, Humanities? Even so, it would be best to spell out that certain groupings apply, and why, rather than leave it up to the sort of guesswork I'm engaging in.

And from another angle, they're all sufficiently different broad topics as to require different desks, not in any sense dependent on any other. I'd have thought an alpha order of all the desks bar Miscellaneous would be the way to go, with Misc at the end:

  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous.

This is certainly the approach that would be used if there were, say, 15 or more desks. The fact that there are fewer than that shouldn't alter the principle of alphabetic indexation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pure-alpha (bar Misc) sounds reasonable to me. — Lomn 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The number of items definitely matters. For a large list, it needs to be alphabetized to hope to find anything. But, with a small list, this just isn't an issue. Also consider that changing the order will cause problems, as people will be used to clicking in a certain location, and may post on the wrong desks for a while as a result. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked versions back to 2007. It looks like the order hasn't really changed at all since they were sort of just tossed together. All the work has been choosing colors and spacing (and removing the repeated addition of Avril from a certain editor here). I don't see why we can't make a sensible order. I don't mind alphabetical order - with Misc at the bottom. -- kainaw™ 15:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Computing gets pride of place in DDC too, but the rest of our order, and indeed the grouping in general, doesn't follow that scheme. Anyway, I'd also agree to the alphabetical order for the six specific desks, with catch-all Miscellaneous featured last. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. I'll work out the proper wikitext and post an editprotected notice over on the proper header subpage. I'll link it here when I'm done. --Ludwigs2 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
the link to the request is here - Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/nav. I took the liberty of adding a horizontal rule in a new table cell just before the miscellaneous desk entry, in order to set that and the archives off from the main desks.
There is actually kind of a logical flow to the current list's sequence, although that might not be intentional. And not that it really matters much. Since you're going to be messing with it anyway, this might be a good time to add the Religion ref desk - which, fittingly, would be between Math and Science. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
lol - hey, I'd love to, but I'd get roundly kicked in my not-so-metaphysical ass for it. feel free to edit it into the proposal yourself, though - it would give people an excuse to start another thread about you, which seems to be a popular ref-desk pastime. --Ludwigs2 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not married to the idea. Others have proposed it, but they get shot down for it. On the contrary, the Entertainment desk doesn't get that much traffic, and could be merged into Humanities. But that would mess up the symmetry of the list. You might be onto something, with the other idea - maybe a subpage focused on complaints about editors, to keep from cluttering this one, which ideally ought to be about the ref desk itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
They should all be in alphabetical order — including the Religion reference desk and the Miscellaneous reference desk. Alphabetical order involves the least input from editors in the decision-making process. I'm all for randomness. I am considering the alphabetical order to be in a sense a "random" order, since the words titling the desks were never chosen with alphabetization in mind. But I would also consider a truly random order — determined by some randomization process. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason for miscellaneous to be on bottom is that lazy people will see it and not look below it to see if their question might fit into an existing desk. Really, it isn't a topic - it is an absence of a topic. -- kainaw™ 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Kainaw — Reasons are our enemy. We should avoid reason at all cost. : ) Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you have got reasons and raisins mixed up. (Nasty old grapes). Googlemeister (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Reason Bran cereal is great. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so wonderful..."[7] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the list of desks at the top of this page. Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the template was added to the page on 8/12/04. It used to all be on one page, then it was split into multiple pages, and then the editors started talking back to the OP's that they had put it on the wrong page. Since so many of the same users appear to edit multiple pages, maybe they could all be thrown back into one. Or would that be too much? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, one of the reasons the desks were split was size: the page started taking forever to load. One alternative is to archive earlier, but we'd have to archive after two days or so, and an all-ecompassing page would probably still be too long. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Or have one page per day anyway. But then the OP would have to remember which day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Misc. and Archives should not be lumped together on the sidebar one. Misc. is a real honest-to-god active desk where you can ask questions. Archives is not. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree. I hate the line above "Miscellaneous". Please put it between Miscellaneous and Archives. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer that, too. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 65#Page length with its subsections. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting to look back at it a bit. The ref desk was created on October 25, 2001. On August 12, 2004, the individual pages were created, with "Miscellaneous" being retained as being the ref desk page. Sometime in 2005, as evidenced by the current history of the ref desk page, a misc. page was created, and a new main ref desk page was created by bringing back the parts of the misc. page that were germane to the main page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Historical note: The Reference Desk did not begin on Oct. 25, 2001. That is merely the oldest remaining edits after the software update lost much of 2001's history. The fact that the first edit is by an IP and yet the pages has headers and multiple questions and answers is a good tip-off that the page history is damaged. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently they didn't have a backup - they ran out of room on their diskette. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry - I thought that line would be an improvement. should have made a mockup first. should we delete it all together or move it down to separate the 'archives' bit off. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This diff[8] reveals what they had in mind 3+ years ago: Sciences on the first line, Humanities on the second line, Misc. "in between". Unfortunately, when they added the archives icon, they bumped the humanities up to the first line, thus screwing the scheme. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If you jokers are gonna monkey around with the sidebar order, change the front page order too - them not matching is driving me up the wall. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Ludwigs2 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, L2. One more thing: the line above Miscellaneous in the sidebar ought to be below it (see above requests). Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
that was taken care of this morning - a protected page which required me to make an {{editrequest}}. I had the bar removed as unnecessary (thought it best to stick with the simple request to reorder until there's a more clear indication that a bigger change is desired). --Ludwigs2 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the bar removed; I agree it's not useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You made me open the Maths desk this morning before I noticed the change! Oh, the humanity! Vimescarrot (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My deepest condolences, VC. But I'm alright Jack. I know that Bad Things Will Happen to Me if I ever visit Computing, so in my cunning plan I made it stay where it was, on top, which makes it easy to continue avoiding it. I can still proudly proclaim that I've never even visited that place, much less got involved in actual questions there.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
heh heh heh heh heh... my nefarious plot has succeeded! now excuse me, I need to go tie someone to a railway. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One outstanding matter

Matt Deres asked above for the list of desks at the top of this page to be put in the same order as we now have in the side bar and the main page. Currently, it says:

  • Wikipedia Reference desks: Computing · Science · Mathematics · Humanities · Language · Entertainment · Miscellaneous · All.

This ought to be:

  • Wikipedia Reference desks: Computing · Entertainment · Humanities · Language · Mathematics · Science · Miscellaneous · All.

I'd quietly fix it myself, but it apparently requires powers greater than those given to mortals. Over. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

By an odd coincidence, earlier today I did that very thing. (Turns out the file in question isn't protected, though it probably should be.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Heat producers question

I removed the question in the section linked above, along with answers that involved medical diagnosis and treatment. -- Scray (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and actions entirely. But what do you (and other editors) think about changing the template so that it simply hides the question below the disclaimer by using the Hidden template too? It'd be easier to see the original question than chugging through to the discussion page. It would mean that any helpful side answers (like that about the presence of heat-producing agents in the body) would still be visible and archived. There are also questions asked where the medical nature is less clear-cut, and so keeping the question on the page would be useful for other editors. What do people think? Brammers (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, would it also be worth throwing a link to Kainaw/Kainaw%27s_criterion into the template too? It's succinct and aids speedy decisions, but I can never remember the name! Brammers (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that removal is to preempt other responses. Using a Hidden Template reduces the burden on somebody who wants to respond; in a sense, encouraging additional responses. If the question does need additional debate about whether a medical-advice-removal was justified, that debate should occur before responses to the OP are given. Nimur (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Correct. A request for medical advice should not have any answers. Those that are given should not have been given. Keeping them visible will lead to further policy-breaking discussion of medical advice. -- kainaw™ 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal is back

A long-term vandal has returned to the Reference Desk. The key identifier for this vandal is that she makes a bunch of accounts and uses each one to ask a very small handful of nonsense questions. She also uses a lot of anon IPs. Further, she refuses to sign any of the questions. So, if you see an apparent nonsense question from a new account with one a couple questions and it is not signed, it is very likely that it is just trolling. My opinion is to delete the question and any other questions asked by the user. Others feel that if it is possible in any way to answer the nonsense, we should do so. There is no consensus for handling this troll - and she knows it. In fact, expect an anon IP to jump in here and raise a stink about prejudice against anon IPs. -- kainaw™ 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an anonymous IP, and a troll is a troll no matter what. I'm not gonna defend someone who clearly behaves as such just because they're an anonymous IP. I'm not into that "sticking up for my kind" bullcrap. And I think I ran into that particular troll you are talking about. "A. Foole", really? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that this particular troll also jumps into discussions here to complain about prejudice against anon IPs. I was not referring to just any anon IP. I was referring to a specific one. -- kainaw™ 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, this is just a mostly harmless (and really pretty good) April Fool's question by someone who's probably a regular here, and not the troll that Kainaw's referring to. Is that correct, Kainaw? By the way, why do you say that your troll is back; I haven't seen any questions recently in that style, or have they been removed? If they've been removed, I'd at least like to see a note on this talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether we should answer the good questions or remove them (I used to, but not anymore). But, IF someone removes a troll-question, they absolutely should NOT report the removal here on this talk page nor should there be any discussion regarding the removal. Us having long debates is precisely what feeds them so if we're going to RBI, we should RBI. I'm not saying that removal is the best option but if that's what we decide to do, we should do it properly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm really uncomfortable with people removing things without telling anyone else. I mean, I trust most of the people here to use good judgement when it comes to removing bad content, but we're all human, and I think that the transparency is worth the potential drama of leaving a short note. Buddy431 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Buddy431. We do not want to start a policy of undocumented removals, because it precludes oversight of any sort. A short note on WP:RDTK, simply stating "Vandalism post removed (diff). (signature)" should be sufficient to inform us. (See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Medremoval above for a functional example). Other regulars can voice agreement or dissent as necessary; but we don't need a debate about each post. Nimur (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A totally obvious troll question ("if I point a telescope at Uranus, would it look brown?") is basically vandalism and can just be reverted as such, without comment. Less obvious cases should probably be reported here for review. However if I'm working from the admin side (banned user, block and revert) I would likely silently remove anything that hadn't been answered and perhaps also collapse threads with answers.
The trolling often starts out with reasonable questions, progressing to borderline, then just plain silly. The troll gets their reward by watching bickering break out here at the borderline phase, so long as we can avoid that part there should be no problem with reporting removals. Franamax (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The particular troll that I am referring to copies/pastes questions from Yahoo Answers and the like. As such, the questions appear to be legitimate questions - just lower quality than the usual RD questions. That makes it hard to keep track of. I've never truly understood the whole purpose of the troll, but I figure she just must not be very smart and assumes that pasting tons of junk questions with a bunch of rarely used accounts will somehow bog down the RD and get back at us all for not letting her post all kinds of fan-fluff to her favorite artist's page. -- kainaw™ 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Section removed

I removed the "how to masturbate" question. The user linked to "wanking" in the question, so he or she knows how to look up the subject, on the 1 out of 1000 chance this is not a troll. The claim that the person is 11 indicates a fake, and also indicates that this is an attempt To Catch A Predator. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good thing you took that away. For a lube, I was going to suggest WD-40. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Every kid in the world has figured this out on their own. They don't need our help. Aaronite (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As a companion piece, we could have something about how to pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
darn, and here I was looking forward to a 'hands-on' explanation. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
TV talk show host Dick Cavett once got into some hot water with the ABC network censors when this subject came up, and Cavett said to his guest, "I don't quite grasp that." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar Location

I noticed that the welcome text/instructions at the top of the reference desk says "Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia", but users participating in the Beta will have their search bar near the top-right of the page. Chances are the users who have entered the Beta will be able to figure out where the search bar is, but it's still kind of incorrect. I can't think of a way to make it more clear (it seems to me that changing it to include both options will just make it more confusing), unless there's a way to show Beta users a different message. -Pete5x5 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment has the right answer: Show Beta users a different message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of giving explicit (and potentially complicated or confusing) instructions on how to locate the search box in different skins, perhaps we should just link to Help:Searching and let readers go from there. (That page might be a good place to provide detailed instructions and/or screenshots showing how to find the search box in the common skins.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Anything we can say without requiring the user to follow a link will make it far simpler for them. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This has come up at least twice before, see here and here. Nothing was done about it on those occasions and I suspect nothing will be done now either. --Richardrj talk email 08:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Music questions at Entertainment Desk

Recently, the following comment was made on this page: "On the contrary, the Entertainment desk doesn't get that much traffic, and could be merged into Humanities." However, there have been some music questions posted at the Humanities Desk: Bach cantatas and Why is music from the Baroque period so good? are two recent examples. It seems to me that music is a topic for the Entertainment Desk.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You can always move them and leave a forward pointer to the new location. I'd predict though that those interested in classical music (includes me) might cavil at the distinction. The first example is trivial and can be answered anywhere. The second example, once evolved, seems to be very much a Humanities-style answer. Entertainment seems like much more of a place to address "pop culture" questions, so attempting to shoehorn material into it for the purpose of achieving a traffic quota may be ill-advised. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::That's a bit insulting to those of us who think of those distinctions in high and low culture as snobbiness. How is classical music and literature "better" than pop culture? Magic Flute wasn't exactly high-brow in its time, and neither was Shakespeare. (Aaronite at a different IP) 72.2.54.34 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just one of the reasons why the Ent desk should go. This false distinction between "high" and "low" culture is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Matt Deres (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As the author of the Baroque question, I felt that it would get more and better attention in the Humanities forum. And besides, don't you think that classical composition is on rather a higher plane than Family Matters or Harry Potter? It certainly has a long history of religious affiliation, which I am not sure is true of Steve Urkel. Vranak (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What the heck does religious affiliation have to do with anything? So questions about My Sweet Lord should go to Humanities while questions about Maybe I'm Amazed go to Entertainment? Ludicrous! The distinction between High and Low Culture is a false dichotomy. To keep with the theme, I suppose a question about I Want to Hold Your Hand would have to go to the lowly Ent. desk, while perhaps Strawberry Fields Forever would be allowed into the rarefied air of Humanities? Questions about something Jack Kirby drew would be Entertainment, unless Roy Lichtenstein had done a copy of it, in which case it would be promoted? "The Fellowship of the Ring" would go in Humanities, while "The Fellowship of the Rings" might or might not make the cut, while of course "The Fellowship of the Ring" would pretty much have to get stuck in the Entertainment ghetto.
Further, I am of the belief that questions asked on the Ent desk do not get the best possible answer there. The nub of the problem is that lack of popularity for a desk is a vicious cycle. The entertainment desk gets fewer questions (and replies) than any other desk except Math and by a large margin. I don't think anyone is debating that. Fewer questions leads to fewer people bothering to check it, which leads to less substantial answers which leads to people asking their questions on another desk. Round and round we go.
This lack of eyeballs would be a major problem for any desk, but may in fact be even more troublesome at the Ent. desk. I don't have a reference to back it up, but it seems to me that, other than perhaps the Math and Computing Desks, Ent is the desk where people most want a very specific answer to a very specific question. If I want to know who played Dracula in a particular commercial or who played banjo in some band, those are questions that have no half-answers - you either know or don't know. In contrast, a question about history will often allow for multiple avenues of attack; a question about science may allow for similar papers or theories to be recalled.
These specificity-laden Ent. questions require someone who knows a particular answer, not someone who has a general understanding of a topic. To state it broadly, my knowledge of archaeology would allow me to make reasonable work of any archaeology questions, even if I hadn't studied the particular topic at hand; I could research the question and be better able to interpret the answer than most lay people. On the other hand, my knowledge of Led Zeppelin and The Beatles would do no good when attempting to answer a question about The Who.
Now let's look at the other extreme - Math and Computing. They also require specific answers. Why aren't I in favour of removing them? Those disciplines tend to pose questions that require someone with a great deal of prior knowledge. A question about C++ can often only be answered by someone who is extremely well-versed in it, so showing the question to more eyeballs would do no good, because only a relatively small subset of eyeballs sit in front a brain able to answer the question intelligently.
So on the one hand, Ent. questions require more eyeballs, while on the other hand, you don't need to have worked in the field for a decade just to understand the question. Anyone passing through might happen to know that one little nugget of information the OP is looking for. The OP is looking for a specific answer while any person reading might happen to be the perfect respondent. Clearly that arrangement is best met by allowing Ent. questions to get wide exposure (i.e. get placed on desks that get more traffic, like Humanities and Misc. My proposal is to simply kill the already half-dead Ent. desk and rename Humanities to "Arts and Humanities". If the OP really doesn't think her question qualifies as an "art", then she can post it to Misc, where the question will at least get a respectable viewing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have very strong opinions on this matter, Matt, so I will leave well-enough alone. What it comes down to for me though, is that the more learned regulars will frequent the Humanities board more than the Entertainment board. One knows where to go for more insightful, intelligent discussion. Vranak (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
So if you ask a question about the Britney Spears answered, but you want a thoughtful answer, put it in humanities? See my small print above: It's snobby to differentiate between "culture" and pop art. Beethoven is 'not' better then ABBA, other than in opinion. I think ABBA was brilliant. Benny and Bjorn knew exactly which emotional buttons to push to get a reaction and become hugely successful. They had a major impact on the whole world culture and everyone knows who they are, be they European, American or Asian. How is that not more than "mere entertainment"? I work in a library, and it infuriates me to see parents pull this on their children, forcing them to read the classics which are totally inappropriate or irrelevant to the age of the child, and denies the quality of modern works, all in the name of art versus "pop culture ruining our lives". They said the same about all art, at one point or another. Aaronite (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You say snobby, I say discriminate. Anyway if we really must draw a line, I propose that dead composers go in Humanities, and live ones, in Entertainment. But no, I am not seriously proposing that. PS - ABBA is awesome, I agree. Vranak (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, same difference: I'm a snob about pop culture, I suppose. That is to say, I hold it in higher regard. I don't mean it offensively, though obviously it comes across that way. Aaronite (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, to bring this full circle, my question pertained to the social cirumstances that formed the dirt for Baroque music to flourish. Definitely more along the lines of Humanities, than asking who played Screech on Saved by the Bell! Vranak (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
They may not be as different as you think (if you consider Baroque music to be a diamond in the dust). StuRat (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm sure you're right Stu. Anyway I have my answers, so if Wavelength wants to move the question over the entertainment, or even expunge it entirely, I will not argue. Vranak (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that the vast majority of people posting here don't don't really know what each desk is about other than the title, and just pop their question wherever they feel like it, regardless of where we feel it belongs. The current system seems to work well enough. Buddy431 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have all seven reference desks on my watchlist, so that I can notice on any of them a question that I might be able to answer. However, it is important that it have an informative heading, because usually the Language Reference Desk is the only one which I keep open continually. I wish to encourage all editors to have all reference desks on their watchlists. Also, I wish to encourage all editors to be sure to choose informative headings.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments (permanent link here), sub-subsection "Others' comments", point 12 of 18, says the following.

  • Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I also just point out that changing the number of desks + archives to an odd number would also present some layout problems for the main page. I do think that a general distinction between "humanities" and "entertainment" is defendable from both theoretical and practical standpoint, even if one acknowledges that the distinction between high and low culture is arbitrary and porous. One does tend to get different types of questions in each desk and most posters can figure out the distinction quite readily. (And the consequences for being "wrong" are very low.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I am a fan of both classical and pop music and I see nothing wrong with putting the former in Humanities and the latter in Ents. The distinction between high and low culture makes perfect sense to me. --Richardrj talk email 08:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Headaches and medical advice

Moved from Science Desk, since it doesn't help the OP

I think the most reasonable assumption is that the OP has a headache and wants advice on getting rid of it. As your reply indicates, the question doesn't have a simple answer. There are all kinds of possible complicating factors that we can't possibly know about, which is why the OP needs to see a medical professional. --Tango (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As reasonable as it is, it is still an assumption. People in this desk need to better understand the difference between medical advice and medical information. The latter one is allowed . Dauto (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That the OP doesn't have a headache is also an assumption, and a less reasonable one. How the question is literally worded is irrelevant, you have to actually use your brain and work out what the OP most likely wants. In this case, the OP most likely wants advice on treating a headache. --Tango (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
All we have to go on are the words placed on screen. Every other assumption is equally valid since it's going by our own reasoning. Who's to say this isn't a non-English speaking student asking for information on headaches and influenza? The assumption isn't ours to make. A simple epilogue stating "see a doctor if this applies to you" would do, rather than refusing to answer the question outright. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake, you don't need to give medical advice to answer this question. The OP is asking for a known cure for headache and flu. It's not "Please give me advice on how to get rid of my headache and flu". Who are we to say this isn't a strictly curious question?
Headache's vary significantly in type, but are usually relieved by some sort of analgesic (such as paracetamol) if they're minor. More serious types of headaches exist and depending on the type, various types of drugs can be given such as stronger analgesics or vasodilators. Sometimes headaches are indications of further, more serious diseases and act as a diagnosis aid. Influenza is a virus which is usually unpleasant but killed off by your immune system, and thus does not usually require treatment. However, in immunocompromised individuals (that is to say, those with a weaker immune system such as the elderly, AIDS patients, transplant patients etc) are often at greater risk because their immune systems may not be able to deal with the rapid replication of the virus. In such cases, doctors prescribe antivirals specific to the current influenza virus to try and boost your immune systems removal of the virus. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Main discussion

The idea that all assumptions are equally valid is nonsense. I could assume the OP was actually talking about an aching toe and typed the wrong word - that assumption would not be as valid as the assumption that "headace" meant "headache". We can't just add a disclaimer to our medical advice saying to see a doctor if it applies to you. That doesn't actually achieve anything. It would be like those toothpaste adverts that tell you to talk to your dentist - they just add that to make using their toothpaste seem like a better solution in comparison, nobody actually goes and talks to their dentist and the advertisers know that. We cannot give medical advice, full stop. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't medical advice: nowhere did Cyclonenim advise Mr. Newton on what to do. He listed a couple of different ways that headaches are treated (all found in our Headache article), and did the same for the flu, again found in our influenza article. If Cyclonenim had said to "pop two aspirin and see how you feel tomorrow", it would be a different story. Per Kainaw's criterion (which is not policy, but is pretty a pretty good rule of thumb), this question can be completely answered without giving a diagnosis or proscribing treatment. Buddy431 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
We always proscribe treatment here.Matt Deres (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You'll note I didn't remove Cyclonenim's response. I don't think it really did constitute advice, I think it was just unhelpful. The OP almost certainly had either a tension headache or sinus congestion and wanted to know how to get rid of it and didn't need to know about all the possible causes of a headache, they needed to know that they should take paracetamol, which was the advice I removed. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, assumption. You can't say with any certainty whatsoever that he/she was suffering from a tension headache or sinus congestion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think those quoting Kainaw's criterion in defense of answering this question ought to read it first. It says "Can the question be answered completely without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice?". When the OP asks "Whats known cure for head ac(h)e and flu?" - then any answer we're likely to give is necessarily offering treatment advice - and per Kainaw, that's not allowed. That's why this thread needed to be removed. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
@Steve: There's a big difference between "whats known cure for headace [sic] and flu" and "can someone give me tips on how to get rid of my headache and flu". I'm not giving specific treatment advice, I'm answering (scientifically) the treatments that are commonly used in the treatment of headache and influenza. If I had given specific information on how to cure this patients illness, then I would be in breach of Kainaw's criterion. Since I didn't, I'm not. Quite simple.
@Tango: Clearly you can extrapolate a little too far on common sense. When I said all assumptions are valid, I meant with respect to common sense assumptions pertaining to the actual question. In this case, there are two possibilities: the OP is asking for medical advice to cure an ailment, or the OP is asking for advice of another sort (i.e. for research, for curiosity). The idea that the OP is requesting information for the latter is equally likely as the former. Where is your proof that the former was the OP's intent? There is no explicit mention of the intent, and just because the question was written with bad grammar doesn't mean its an idiot asking for advice on how to get rid of his flu. It could just mean it's a non-English speaking person putting together the best words they can to try and get information on influenza and headaches. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no big difference between asking for a cure for something and asking for tips on curing something. They are essentially the same question. Your two possibilities are not equally likely. It is far more likely that he has a headache and wanted to know how to treat it. Lots of people get headaches and would like to treat them. Very few people have idle curiosity about treating headaches. The quality of English isn't the main clue that this person is an idiot (to use your word, I think actually they are probably just very young) - that fact that they don't know the answer to such a simple question is the main clue. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Cyclonenim here, if you can assume a Q about headaches is a request for treatment advice by the OP, then any medical Q at all can be assumed to be a request for medical advice. If someone asks the normal heart rate for people, you can assume theirs is either too fast or too slow and that they want medical advice. If someone asks about the normal number of teeth in the adult human mouth, you can assume they have a dental problem and refuse to answer. If someone asks what astigmatism is, you can refuse to answer and send them to an eye doctor. Slippery slope indeed. StuRat (talk)
This isn't "a question about headaches". It is someone asking about how to cure headaches. It is completely different to your examples. If someone asks how to treat a headache the most reasonable assumption is that they have a headache they want to treat (the second most likely assumption is that someone they know has a headache they want to treat, which is no better). --Tango (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As has already been said, you don't need to make any assumptions, just answer the Q, unless it's an explicit request for medical advice. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point, no one's disputing it's about headaches + influenza, we're disputing that it's asking for advice on personal/friend/family/whatever treatment of headaches + influenza. Asking "how can I cure a headache and flu?" is different to "how do doctors treat headaches and flu?". The original question ("Whats known cure for head ace and flu") does not in any way suggest that the OP is asking for advice regarding their headache and flu. It's asking for information regarding headache and flu treatment. How you can then extrapolate that into them asking for advice for their personal ailment is what I'm confused about. I also disagree with your above statement about them not knowing how to answer such a simple question. Not everyone, regardless of intelligence, knows the specifics regarding headache and influenza treatment. Yes, they may be aware of analgesics like paracetamol and simple terms like viruses, but they may not know that vasoconstrictors or benzodiazapines are used in their treatment. The chance that the OP was here to ask about their headache, or to get information generally on headaches, is very, very similar indeed. I know you disagree with that point, but it's kind of irrelevant since we have no idea which reason applies. You can assume he's here for personal treatment advice, but you have no way of proving that. Summed up in one sentence, read StuRats just above. Don't make the assumption, just answer the question unless you can prove he's here asking for personal advice. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above, 2x) Come on. Cyclonenim hasn't said anything that wasn't in our articles on the subjects. He hasn't attempted to diagnose Mr. Newton's condition, and he isn't recommending any form of treatment. I think the whole argument about why Mr. Newman asked this question is irrelevant. If he knew more about Wikipedia, he could find exactly the same information in the Headache and Influenza article. That's what a reference desk is for: people who know how to find and use references help out those who don't. If Mr. Newton had asked "what're the known cures for leukemia", we would have directed him to leukemia and said that depending on the case, it can be treated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and sometimes a bone marrow transplant, and if you have it, you should see a doctor. This question is no different in this regard. Buddy431 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
All these complicated arguments! This is very simple: How is "Headache's...are usually relieved by some sort of analgesic (such as paracetamol)" not "treatment advice"? This is advice about which drug to use to "relieve" a headache. How can that possibly not be treatment advice? SteveBaker (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Cyclonenim passed no judgement on whether or not that was the correct or best treatment for a headache, but rather that that is what's typically done. If we're going to be strict about this, I at least linked to the appropriate articles so the OP can wade through, find the section labeled treatment, and read for himself what Cyclonenim had summarized. Buddy431 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Advice is "An opinion recommended or offered, as worthy to be followed" (Wiktionary) or "recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct" (Merriam Webster) sorry I don't have access to the OED at the moment. A recommendation is a commendation or endorsement (Wiktionary, also MW). "Advice" implies that that someone is saying that <doing something> is a good thing. Simple statements of fact are not advice, as long as they aren't presented with the intention of endorsing a particular course of action. "Headache's...are usually relieved by some sort of analgesic (such as paracetamol)" is not treatment advice the same way "Leukemia .. is frequently treated by chemotherapeutic agents (such as doxorubicin)" is not treatment advice. The writer is in no way suggesting that the reader get up from his chair, run down to the store and pick up some doxorubicin. Telling someone that paracetamol can be used to relieve a headache is very different from saying that it should be used. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Steve, I'm afraid you are simply mistaken in this case. There is a line, albeit a fine one, between giving advice and giving statements of fact. We are an encyclopaedia, do you propose I go right ahead and remove all information pertaining to treatment of disease because it could be used by some self-help neurotic? Judging by your reasoning, that would all breach the medical disclaimer would it not? This is the flaw in your argument, as well as the misunderstanding between giving advice and giving information that isn't intended for the OPs use. We are a reference desk, I am allowed to summarise information from our articles and respond to OPs with that information. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree that there's a difference between a map and driving directions? No matter how neutrally you attempt to provide instructions to find City Hall, you're providing an opinion as to the appropriate route. Within the context of medical questions, we've decided that we're not allowed to say even the equivalent of "Yeah, City Hall is two blocks north of here; you can see the flag." All we can do is provide the map. That's why our articles can provide more detailed information - it's just a map. The question should have been answered with, "Here are our articles on headache and influenza. If you're looking for advice, see a medical professional, like a medical doctor or pharmacist." There are times I find it aggravating as well, but this is one of the rules we live by here. Matt Deres (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree that there are times when our guidelines about not offering medical advice are annoying. Certainly at first sight, the idea that we can't tell someone with a headache to take a tylanol seems pretty silly. However, we have had FAR too many cases when an OP has come along and described some potentially life-threatening conditions and some random person on the Internet has given them disasterously stupid advice...sometimes in ill-thought-out jest...sometimes in all honesty. Since the consequences for our OP, for Wikipedia and for us as individuals are potentially so serious, we have to draw a bright line that provides clear guidance on these matters without ikky borderline cases. We also have to have that line err on the safe side of this matter. There is consensus that the no-medical-advice directive is a good one - and widespread acceptance of Kainaw's criterion as a useful way to interpret that rule. If someone genuinely has nothing more than a simple headache then the consequences of us telling them that we won't answer their question is essentially zero. If someone has a chest pain and someone says "Don't worry it's probably just indigestion" - then that could kill someone...and we have had answers here that have been at least that stupid in the past! In either case, it's just better that we don't answer. Even pointing them to an article may be dubious. If someone complains of chest pain - and we point them to chest pain - then that's probably OK - but if we point them to indigestion - then we're back in the realms of killing people through good intentions. But even in this case - how do we know that the OP isn't a precocious 8 year old child who has been left alone in the house? We recommend taking a tylanol - and since the minimum age for taking such things is 12 years, we've made a HORRIBLE misdiagnosis with possibly serious health implications. Is that really so unlikely in this case? We have someone with terrible spelling (could be a child) who doesn't know the standard remedy for a headache?!? It could very easily be a young child. So we have a 'bright line' rule - and we stick to it, even if it means that someone has to suffer through a headache once in a while. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@Matt, yes I see that, but I also see all the information that I said on our medical pages. The idea of saying "see headache" instead of listing specific information about headaches 'which is found on that page is about the stupidest thing I've heard this year. If you assume that what I said on the reference desk could harm the individual in any way, you must also accept that the information on our headache page is equally dangerous, and should be removed. Yet I see no boycott to do so, why? Because the information isn't harmful! It's not our responsibility to restrict information unless it's absolutely clear that the OPs intention could harm them. In this case, it simply isn't that clear (as can be shown by our disagreement to what the words mean...)

@Steve: Not once have I said that I think that Kainaw's criterion is bad, not useful or whatever. I agree that our words here to direct medical advice questions could have potential serious consequences, that's a given. The point you have not yet answered is where the idea of thinking this person wants personal advice is coming from. You said "We have someone with terrible spelling (could be a child) who doesn't know the standard remedy for a headache?!?", at which point in the question does it ask for a standard remedy? Headache's are far more complicated than most people realise, they are diagnostic of many other illnesses and there are many, many types with different treatment methods. Therefore, asking about cures for headaches is a much more complicated question than it first seems. At no point in the question is there any evidence for their intent of asking the question. Assuming this is either a child or suffering person is silly, just as silly as it is to assume my idea that they could be a student. No proof of intent = no reason to not provide the answer. This person could be looking for cures of complicated headaches for research, we don't know. Sure, potentially this person could then go out and overdose on some paracetamol, but that's not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to answer the question at hand UNLESS there is clear intent of asking for relief of a personal ailment of some kind.

To continue with analogies, this is similar to a librarian refusing to show someone where a medical book on treatment of headaches and influenza is in the library, on the grounds that they are looking for personal treatment advice. Would that ever happen? Hell, would it. I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is broken. As I said (above) I have no problem linking to chest pain if the OP asks about chest pain - or headache if that's what he's talking about. That's not doing anything except helping someone who doesn't know how to use a search engine. But when you linked to paracetamol - you're offering treatment advice...and that's crossing the bright line rule. I'd be very surprised indeed if a "real" reference librarian would offer books about paracetamol in response to a question about headache treatment. But even if they would - that's neither here nor there because we have our own rules that may well be different from those of your local library. SteveBaker (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So I best delete this entire section, then? After all, it does say paracetamol is used to treat headaches. Please answer why we are allowed to place that in an article and say "see headache", but I am not allowed to say "use paracetamol" even if it's in the article? You can't pick and choose how to apply the medical disclaimer, and consensus seems to agree with me here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@Steve: so is our policy to not answer any medical related questions at all? Because that's how I'm reading your comment: If we tell someone something about medicine or disease, they might act on it, so we shouldn't do it. My interpretation of our medical guidelines is that we can provide information in a general sense on different diseases, and the related treatments, but with the clear understanding that these general statements should in no way be applied to an individual case. Obviously, we need to clarify our guidelines so that there's more agreement. Buddy431 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. Kainaw's criterion is very specific on what we're not allowed do to: No diagnosing from symptoms. No advice on treatments. No predicting of outcomes. Everything else should be OK. So if someone had asked:
  • What are the causes of headaches? -- we could answer that by saying "Brain cancer, dehydration, eating ice-cream too quickly, being hit on the head with a large iron bar, arguing about Kainaw's criterion on the RD...", and so on - all without diagnosing, prognosing or suggesting a treatment.
  • How is influenza spread? -- we could say "By people sneezing on each other"...or whatever the right answer is.
  • Is influenza bacterial, viral or fungal in nature? -- we're on solid ground if we say something like "It's caused by a virus."
I'm sure there are many other categories of medical questions we can answer without breaking the rules. What Kainaw's criterion says is that you can't answer are things like:
  • What disease is responsible for <some symptom>? -- Providing a diagnosis is not allowed. You cannot provide a connection from a list of symptoms to a medical cause.
  • How long will someone live if they have <some fatal condition>? -- Providing a prognosis is not allowed. You cannot tell someone what the outcome of a particular medical condition might be.
  • How is <some disease> cured? -- Providing treatment advice is not allowed. You cannot tell people how to treat a particular medical condition.
Any halfway decent doctor will tell you that without examining a patient, you can't be sure that you have been accurately given all of the symptoms so you can't offer an accurate diagnosis, you can't tell how far the disease has progressed so you can't offer a prognosis and without both of those things, you certainly can't offer a treatment. Since we cannot examine the patient, we can't do any of those things intelligently...even if we were medically qualified. We don't even have a way to tell if any particular person here is medically qualified or not! SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Every single example Kainaw gives, even the borderline cases, uses "I" or "my" in the Q, and this Q doesn't. That's why it doesn't qualify. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a rather literal reading of a criterion that is really just a handy guideline. The I/my problem is only part of the issue.
The main problem is that a "headache" is a symptom, and could be caused by a lot of things, all of which have different treatments. In order to know what the treatment is, you have to know what is causing the headache. Cyclonemin's answer kind of points that out, and I'd say that if one has to qualify the answer with "depending on the type," then the answer is straying into an area that should be avoided. If additional information is needed to answer a question, then we probably shouldn't answer it.
What if the OP asked "Whats known cure for fever?" You'd have to agree that in order to answer that question you need to know what is causing the fever. It would be crazy to just say "fever is usually treated with ibuprofen or paracetamol," even though it is technically correct that antipyretic medications would treat a fever, they just wouldn't treat the underlying cause... which requires a diagnosis and hence is out of our jurisdiction on the RD. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@ StuRat: So your position is that everything depends on whether the person asks the question in the third person or not? That's crazy! We might as well change our stock medical question template with something that says "If you could just reword your question as a hypothetical, we'll be more than happy to let our crowd of random people diagnose your treatment and tell you exactly what drugs your should take."...the actual wording of the question is monumentally irrelevant. Again, the beauty of Kainaws' criterion is that it doesn't say anything whatever about the wording of the question - only about the nature of the responses. SteveBaker (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It says a great deal about the wording of the Q, in the examples. And nothing could be more relevant in determining if a Q is for medical advice, than how it is worded. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rule clarification

OK, shall we now entertain some proposals on how we can make the rules more clear ?

I propose saying we "allow medical questions which are not explicit requests for medical advice". StuRat (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, that's always been the rule. We've always been allowed to answer medical questions so long as they aren't requests for advice. I don't think the rules even need clarifying, I just think people need to place more thought into whether a question is genuinely asking for advice or not. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this has always been the rule, but the fact that two regulars seem to think otherwise implies that we do need to clarify it, doesn't it ? StuRat (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that some people think that "How do I cure my headache?" and "How are headaches cured?" are somehow radically different questions. From a strictly linguistic standpoint, they are certainly very different - but from a practical perspective, a given OP might choose to phrase a request for personal diagnosis/prognosis/treatment either way. There is indeed strong evidence that some OP's who have learned that we don't answer medical questions are trying to 'game the system' and tune their questions to bypass our rules. Kainaws' criterion is a good way to look at the problem because it avoids the entire issue of precisely how the question is asked and focusses instead on the answers we give. SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That "some people" you refer to appears to be the majority. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're adding words to the question. You can't assume the OP asked "how do I cure my headache" when they ask "Whats known cure for headache". Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Kainaws' criterion has it well covered. It's elegant and simple and it already meets consensus. The problem (as I see it) is that people aren't reading what it actually says. "No treatment advice" means that you don't tell people how to cure a headache. You link to headache and you tell them that if they have serious concerns over their health, then go see a doctor. I think we're doing OK - we should expect to have to 'enforce' the rule once in a while and to have to deal with the resulting debate. There is no way we're going to be able to magically clarify things to the point where people who haven't even read the rules will obey them - and no matter how bright the line is, we're always going to have these kinds of debate in borderline cases. The point is that bad answers and unacceptable questions get cleaned up rapidly - and then possibly replaced if the consensus resulting from debate says that they should have been allowed. I don't think we need to change a thing. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be that there was no problem with the response which was inappropriately removed, yet it hasn't been put back, in this case. Hence the problem. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm too involved/biased to restore this myself, but I'd appreciate if someone else would. As far as I see this is simply a misinterpretation of Kainaws' criterion. Yes, we can't give treatment advice ("Go and take some paracetamol") but we can give facts about how headaches are treated ("Headaches are treated with paracetamol"). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Restored, per consensus. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really see a consensus here. Just the same argument that happens every time a borderline medical advice question is posted. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@ StuRat - you've been here for long enough - you should know better. A majority is not consensus - and I don't think you even have a majority (not that it matters). Go and read Wikipedia:What is consensus?. I don't see anything remotely close to a consensus yet. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I see an overwhelming majority, everyone but you and Tango. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is "gaming the system" really a problem?

Apologies for coming in late. (It always amazes me how fast the discussion on a hot-button issue like this can explode, if you turn your head away for just a day.)

Is the consensus now that it is a problem if someone can "trick" us into giving what might otherwise be medical advice, as long as they're careful to phrase their question hypothetically?

At least twice before we've addressed this precise question and determined that it was not a problem. (Unfortunately I haven't managed to dredge out the two previous discussions I'm thinking of. They were probably one and two years ago or so.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm late too. Rather than re-hash all the arguments, I'll just say that I agree with Cyclonenim's assessment and response to the original question. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if someone could readd my response to the main reference desk question if they feel it's appropriate, consensus seems clear here despite SteveBaker and Tango's objections. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I put it back, but left all the arguing about whether it's medical advice here. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What would be the reason behind that rule? The underlying principle here is "do no harm" (one mustn't take that entirely literally, of course, it's all about weighing things up and not doing harm that isn't worth it). The potential harm done by telling someone with a headache how to treat that headache is the same regardless of how cleverly they word the question or how cleverly you word the answer. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But Cyclonenim isn't "telling someone with a headache how to treat that headache". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
YES!! Cycloenim absolutely IS telling someone how to treat headaches. None of our guidelines have all of this imagined nuanced subtlety to them. Go and read what they ACTUALLY say. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Telling someone how to treat headaches is not "telling someone with a headache how to treat that headache", and you know this and are just choosing to be difficult. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You and Steve Baker seem bound and determined to misrepresent the OP as "someone with a headache". StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Because they probably did. Do you seriously think it is more likely that the OP was asking out of idle curiosity than because they had a headache? I'm not asking what you think would be the more convenient reality, but what you think is the actual reality. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
...and even if this was just idle curiosity - shouldn't we err on the side of caution given a lack of sure knowledge? SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well we need to ensure we don't repeat this debate again. Tango, the point is that each reality is as equal as the other whether you like it or not BECAUSE WE HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION TO GO ON. Gut instinct isn't enough, imagine if we used that in real research? "My gut instinct is that smoking doesn't cause cancer, but I have no evidence for that". Evidence is the foundation of everything, really, and there is no evidence to suggest that this had any personal intent. Simple as that, no if's, no but's. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Me, I'm not at all sure that the driving principle is (or should be) "do no harm". If that principle trumps all others, eventually we'll convince ourselves we can't give out any information about anything. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that reminds me of the computer system put in charge of the whole world, with the goal of "minimizing human suffering", which concluded that killing everyone immediately would best accomplish that goal. If doctors took the "do no harm" part of the oath to mean "don't do anything which could possible ever cause harm", they would all have to abandon their patients. A more reasonable goal is "don't do anything which will get us sued" (and even that has it's problems). StuRat (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to strike my comment, but now that you've responded to it, let me clarify. For our purposes (as opposed to, say, doctors) what's interesting about the "do no harm" principle is that we are not cutting people open or injecting them with chemicals. All we're doing is providing information. Nothing we do here can directly harm anyone; harm could occur only if/when some reader decides (of his own free will) to act on what we've written.
This does not mean that "do no harm" is irrelevant to us; one can do harm with words. (Cue arguments about shouting "Fire!" in crowded theaters, and recent sad cases about teenagers driven to suicide by incessant bullying.) But my point is that "do no harm" is not nearly as much an imperative for us as it is for doctors. "Do no harm" applies to us, I think, when someone asks for help building bombs or plotting murder. But I don't think it's our only, let alone our driving or underlying principle. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I already said you shouldn't take the principle literally. We all know what "do no harm" means as a principle, stop pretending you don't to be difficult. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw your parenthetical belatedly; apologies for that. But I am most certainly not trying to be difficult. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we have helped people plan a murder. I couldn't find any pipe bombs, but we've discussed fun stuff like thermite. But to the point, I think our guidelines about medical and other professional advice are fine. I also think that they should be narrowly interpreted, so that "no medical advice" actually means no medical advice, and not no medical information. Buddy431 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it means "no advice" not "no information". I went to some trouble (above) to list questions that legitimately provide information and questions that violate Kainaws' criterion. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And I disagree with what you consider "legitimately providing information" vs. "giving medical advice". I do see the questions "How are headaches typically treated" and 'how should I treat my headache" as fundamentally different questions deserving different answers, while you see them both essentially the same. I can certainly understand where you're coming from, saying that someone who is asking about cures for headaches probably has a headache. However, to me, the first question is clearly asking about a general case: In our society, what types of drugs are given to treat headaches? The second question is asking about a specific case: How should a particular headache (i.e. mine) be treated? The second question cannot be answered, because it would require us to know more about what's causing a particular headache, and it would require us to advise a treatment (pass judgement on what form of treatment would be best). The first question can be answered (in my opinion), because it asks for general trends seen over large amounts of data, and does not requre advice of any kind. Saying that many headaches are treated with Tylenol in no way endorses the use of Tylenol to treat headaches. I could just as well say that ear candling is often used to try to remove ear wax, without advising anyone with excess earwax to try ear candling.Buddy431 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did, but you failed to address the actual question. "whats known cure for headache" absolutely, in no way whatsoever, implies the OP had a headache. I could just as easily see someone asking for this information without having a headache. I simply do not see the logic in failing to provide information but instead providing links which link to that exact information. At no stage did I say "go and take paracetamol", I said something along the lines of "headaches are treated by analgesics". Very different things, and as childish as it sounds, you're wrong on this one. If you fail to see that, I don't know what else I can say. I do, unlike others, see consensus here (and no, not a simple majority). All you have linked to over and over is "Kainaw's criterion" which really doesn't apply one bit since the OP didn't ask for advice, they asked for facts, which is what we're here for. I don't like the idea of people running away and screaming "MEDICAL ADVICE. REMOVE IT." every time a remotely medically-related question pops up. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. And now that I have caught up with more of the thread, I can say that:
  1. The original question, "Whats known cure for head ace and flu", is clearly not a request for medical advice of any kind. It's clearly a request for information; there's no suggestion that it's an advice question in disguise.
  1. Cyclonenim's answer was very careful to give general, factual advice, without venturing any diagnoses. That he was able to do so proves that the question was (or could be construed as) an information question. And that he answered the question so well, carefully and cleanly within both the letter and the spirit of the medical-advice guidelines, reflects very well on him, I think. (If we could all do more of that, and less quibbling here, the Reference Desks would be a better place.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Go and read what they ACTUALLY say."

— SteveBaker

Your patronising self-righteous attitude doesn't help your argument. I agree with Cyclonenim and you aren't going to persuade me otherwise. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclonenim et al. Another reason to keep this question is WP:AGF. If an OP asks for medical advice directly then we delete the question but if they ask for information (as this questioner did) we should assume that they know the rules and are interested in the hypothetical. To those who want to delete this question: how would you guys ask the reference desk to help you find information regarding common treatments for headaches (or any other illness)? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this:-
"Whats known cure for head ace and flu. I solemnly declare that I do not have head ace or flu. Neither does any member of my family, nor any of my friends have head ace or flu. I shall not use any information posted here to provide treatment to any individual person." Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The only response acceptable or needed is "see our [article]s, or see a doctor". Using paracetamol as a "such as" example puts that particular option front and centre. A bit amusing too, seeing that "[p]aracetamol hepatotoxicity is, by far, the most common cause of acute liver failure...", yeah they'll be consulting a medical professional soon enough. ;) I think often people here argue as much in defense of their own ability or desire to answer a/any question(s) responsibly and well. But you're also defending the ability of any random poster answering with their own opinion of what's right too, and the OP reading that before someone with more sense removes that "take two Tylenol and drink four beers" advice. And there's no slippery slope either, Kainaw's criteria are clear enough and like SteveBaker says above, if you must, err slightly on the side of caution. Why is that so difficult? Franamax (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not difficult, it's just unnecessary. It's not our responsibility to babysit every poster, and without due cause to suspect any personal ailment there is no reason to assume that they'll use our information for their own use. As explained many times, this outcome is just as likely as someone using the information for personal research since the actual question had NO information suggesting any intent, it just asks for facts about treatment scenarios. There is no need to err on the side of caution. People above such as Steve and Tango have suggested that the mere act of asking how to cure a headache is so simple that it suggests its a child. I see this more as proof that the OP was likely looking for further information rather than looking for a literal headache cure for their own use. If any random person comes and answers a medical question like "take twoTylenol and drink four beers", then clearly it would breach Kainaw's criterion and our medical disclaimer and should be removed. What I said is literally no different to saying "see headache", which as you just established is fine. It was answered professionally and responsibly with absolutely no relation to the OP. I, in no way, suggested that the OP should go and take paracetamol; instead, I said headaches are treated with analgesics SUCH AS paracetamol. These are very different concepts. Why is it fine, if saying it directly isn't? You're being hypocritical in your responses, and it's a question for which I am yet to get an answer despite asking several times. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
But why did you use paracetamol as an example? Why not ibuprofen (which works way better for headaches and relief of flu symptoms in my experience)? Could I have jumped in with my preference and extolled its superiority? Should I race with you to answer, so as to get my preferred choice in first? I'm not trying to troll you on this, I'm just cautious on where the natural instinct of a RD regular to answer intersects with the way those answers can cross the line as they develop in a thread. Franamax (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Because that's what the article says, if I said ibuprofen then I would indeed be offering a medical opinion which is not our place. We're supposed to reply with facts. I don't think any of us are dumb enough to place answering a question ahead of the OPs wellbeing. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Cyclonemin, you gave a very reasonable answer, and I don't see anyone arguing that it was somehow reckless or potentially harmful. The problem is that the question, as posed by the OP, should have been answered with a very simple response (something like "Read our articles on headache and influenza and then return if you have more specific questions on the topic" which is basically what Buddy431 eventually said). I don't think there would have been any hullaballoo and we would not be having this endless discussion. Kainaw asks "can the question be answered completely without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice?" To answer the OP's questions completely you must first know "what kind of headache?" and "what kind of flu?" (DIAGNOSIS) and then explicitly provide information about a "cure" (TREATMENT). Thus, we should not try to answer the question. I agree that it may seem silly and overly cautious, but IMHO the correct response is to simply point to the articles and ask that the OP be more specific about what they want to know. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, no one has answered my key question but still address it. I shall put it in bold. Why am I allowed to suggest "read headache" but not allowed to say "headaches are usually treated by analgesics paracetamol" (which is what the headache article says)? How is that any less hamrful? If you're arguing for this, you have to be arguing for the removal of all treatment information from Wikipedia as they are one in the same thing.Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
To me, this question is the equivalent of someone asking "where can I find information about the treatment of headache and flu?" To which my answer would be, "Try our articles on headache and influenza." If the same question were posed to a librarian, he/she would undoubtedly point the OP in the direction of medical textbooks, NOT answer the question with a specific drug. The difference is that by giving specific examples of treatments, even with the appropriate qualifying statements, one must make some type of judgment (akin to a diagnosis) about what the OP specifically wants to know. It is a very different thing to show someone WHERE to find information than to give them specific information about what you think they are looking for. No one is arguing against medical information being freely available. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I do see your point, but if the information they point to is identical and well referenced, then where is the harm? That's the case we're discussing. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand Kainaw's criterion, then. Remember, the OP did not ask, "what is a way to cure my headache?" or "what is a way to cure my flu?" Ergo, it was not necessary to know which specific kind, or to engage in anything remotely like a diagnosis. Ergo, it was possible to give a generic answer (as indeed Cyclonenim did).
I'm sorry that we're going back and forth on this; I fear there's some key argument I'm missing. It's clear to me that the OP's question was as close to a medical information question (and therefore as far from a medical advice question) as we could hope to get. So if this question can't be answered, I'm left with the conclusion that medical information questions are now forbidden. Yet that's not what our guidelines say, and indeed everyone in this thread has agreed that medical information questions are still permissible. So why not this one? —Steve Summit (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't think that Kainaw's criterion stipulates anything about the narrative mode of the question. The key argument, in my mind, is that in order to answer this particular question accurately, we ultimately have to know what kind of headache the OP is talking about (cluster headache? sinus headache? migraine headache? caffeine withdrawal? hangover? brain tumor?) before even considering what a "cure" might consist of. There are similar conditional answers to the flu part of the question. Cyclonemin's response even alludes to this fact ("depending on the type") which should be a clue that the question, in it's current form, should just be answered with simple links and asking the OP to clarify what it is that he/she really wants to know. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think, since every one of Kainaw's examples uses either "I" or "my", that makes it clear that we should only be concerned about questions asked in that form. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I actually disagree with that. If someone asks "What's the best way to cure a headache", we might be straying into advice (rather than information) in answering it. And we always need to be mindful of the responses; even if the question doesn't ask for medical advice, someone might give it anyway. Buddy431 (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In those cases the guidelines say that we should delete the answers that provide advice - not the question which which doesn't ask for advice. It's perfectly possible to list common treatments for certain illnesses without providing advice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Have I been watching a whole different show? Isn't this whole thing about how a specific mention of one certain treatment option was removed, then someone else decided to craft a response which managed to contain the same recommendation for treatment but in a more "neutral" format? Following which all hell broke loose on this page? Franamax (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hope I haven't derailed this. I've been objecting to people who think this was an inappropriate question. I've just gone and read this (entire!) thread and I see that some people do believe that we shouldn't entertain this question. I think (and the guidelines agree) that we should answer this question, but do so without giving away any advice. I'm not an expert so I don't know if Cyclone's answer is technically correct but he didn't give away any advice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That was never what this was about; as far as I know my account was never actually questioned in accuracy. The 'problem' (I don't see it that way but nevermind) is that I answered, supposedly, a medical request for information. Some people are seeing it as me answering a request for medical advice, whereas the majority here are seeing it as an answer to a general medical question. Since there were no words to suggest the OPs request was for personal use, we see no harm in answering the question as it could just as legitimately be a request for information NOT for personal use, i.e. for research instead. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
MG, you are essentially repeating my main point. Saying "whats known cure for headache" could just be saying "what are the known cures for headaches" which, as you pointed out, would need a very complicated answer since headahces vary significantly in type. I don't agree with Tango above where he says this is most likely a "tension headache", where there is no proof the OP even has one. I don't agree with just posting overall links when we can just summarise the information IN those links for the OP. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! The question cannot be answered completely without further interpretation of the OP's meaning. However, a summary will by definition be incomplete and may leave out the exact information that the OP was actually looking for. With any other RD question, this is perfectly acceptable and part of the process, but opening up a question like this one is just asking for problems (hence this interminable discussion). --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still do not see the problem. How is "what are headache cures?" followed by a (possibly incomplete) list of headache cures, any different from "what are steelmaking processes?" followed by a (possibly incomplete) list of those? How is the question "just asking for problems"? I don't see any problem for the OP, any problem for the answerer, any problem for Wikipedia's liability. The only problem is that some people want to turn every medical information question into a medical advice question so that they can complain about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing

Fwiw, the medical section of the RD guidelines provides an example which shows that this question is not a request for advice. Have a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice#Distinguishing_between_what_is_and_what_is_not_acceptable. If you don't like that then we need to change the guidelines. If a question is posed as hypothetical, we should treat it as hypothetical. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The example you point to does not in any way give carte blanche to answer medical-related questions simply because they are posed as a hypothetical. In the section just above that it clearly states "Any posted comment containing a diagnosis, a prognosis based on that diagnosis, or a suggested form of treatment or cure, in response to symptoms presented in a question, is considered inappropriate for the reference desk, as are questions that seem to be implicitly or explicitly requesting such advice." Headache (symptom) --> Paracetamol (treatment). QED.
ACK... MUST... GET... BACK... TO... WORK... :)
--- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
But, yet again, the examples of Q's and A's considered unacceptable use personal pronouns ("I", "I've", "you") while the acceptable Q does not. Combine this with the 6 examples from Kainaw and it really seems as simple as that, in every example so far. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be at an utter impasse. The posted question does not implicitly or explicitly request treatment suggestions in response to symptoms presented. Cyclonemin's answer does not offer diagnoses or prognoses in response to symptoms presented. And yet people keep asserting that there's something wrong with the question or the answer. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

so are hypothetical questions okay, or not?

Up above I asked, "Is 'gaming the system' really a problem?", and never got an answer. So I want to try again, because it seems like the objections to this question or the proffered answers seem to revolve around fears that the OP might secretly be asking for medical advice, or might wantonly use the proffered answers as part of some unsafe self-treatment attempt. Is this the main problem here, that people are objecting to? Or is it something else? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that if someone says "Hypothetically if I had leukaemia then..." then Wikipedia has no liability if we answer. If the person uses the advice personally, against the idea of it being hypothetical, then that is their decision. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The right answer to a question worded that way, could be, "Hypothetically, go see your doctor." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You're advising we get rid of the no-medical-advice policy, which is a terrible idea because of the unethical nature of an unqualified nonprofessional dispensing medical advice. Theoretical legal liability is a distant 2nd on the list of reasons why we don't give medical advice; a diagnosis and advice are supposed to be given by a doctor. The main reason is that we don't want the querents damaging their health by following incorrect advice. The actual subject under discussion is, I believe, whether the headache question inevitably leads to medical advice or not. (Personally I am undecided.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The treatment for headaches can range from Tylenol or aspirin, to brain surgery, depending on the cause. If someone asks how to fix a headache, the only possible valid response is, "See your doctor". If there's an article on headache, we could point them to it for general info - and hope they don't draw self-diagnostic conclusions from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? You think you know what I'm advising? When did I ever suggest we get rid of the no-medical-advice policy? The whole point of this discussion how the OP started the question, not getting rid of any policy whatsoever. This has nothing to do with diagnosis. We don't care any less for the wellbeing of to OP; we merely believe your hypotheses to be wrong. Comet Turtle is right in his/her last sentence. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Paratrooper Medical Advice

Removed. Diff. ShadowRanger already informed the OP, but I have removed the question per our guidelines. Hopefully this one is so far over the line that there's no need to debate ad-nauseum. Nimur (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to provide a link to tramadol in this case (in case the 90.208 didn't know we had an article), or do we just not respond at all to the content of the question? Buddy431 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A link to tramadol would be good, but absolutely no medical advice on this one me thinks. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed highly questionable diagnosis

I actually noticed this earlier and should have dealt with it. But anyway I removed [9]. While I agree it's highly unlikely to be MRSA (and even if it were, there was no way you could diagnose it from the photo), we shouldn't be offering any diagnosis including saying it's not MRSA so simple removal of the first highly questionable (joke?) diagnosis is the best course of action rather then offering further diagnosis. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should have edited the comment from the IP saying "looks like MRSA" to just remove that one bit. The whole comment should have gone. Removing bits and pieces of posts is....untidy. I don't disagree with the removal, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Untidy or not, when it can be done without seemingly significantly changing the meaning of the answer, it generally avoids unnecessary disputes and edit wars that can come with removing an entire comment when only part of it is problematic and is a well accepted practice here and elsewhere. (This example isn't so bad and the OP perhaps wouldn't care but if we were to remove the entire question when an e-mail address is given for example that would cause a lot of controversy.) However on consideration I didn't make it clear enough where I removed the diagnosis from so I made a change [10] Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Feels like a bad habit, though. You can easily change the meaning of someone's post by selectively deleting parts of it. Even here, there's been a slight shift in meaning. From "See a doctor for treatment for MRSA." to "See a doctor for diagnosis." APL (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship advice

I am not comfortable about the amount of "advice" being given concerning sexual relationships, the latest being the question entitled "Woman" at the Miscellaneous Desk on April 9th. This is a "reference" desk, which to my mind renders relationship advice inappropriate, however well meaning. Furthermore it opens the door for trolling and all sorts of opinionated and uninformed speculation from us random people, and while a few responses might be on target most of them seem to be jokey or speculative. I'd like to suggest we put these in the same category as medical advice questions, and replace them with a sympathetic boilerplate text. No doubt this topic has been discussed before, so I'd appreciate a link to any previous discussion.--Shantavira|feed me 09:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many books written that provide relationship advice, and in that sense it is well within the scope of a reference librarian. In other words, we could direct them to any number of sources that provide more information on relationship issues. However, as we are all familiar with relationships there is a temptation to offer lots of "original research" on questions like this. I can see some virtue in trying to discourage that and encourage more robust answers. However, I disagree that the category of question should be banned. Dragons flight (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
One way of approaching this would be to demand that we cite sources, though over at the Computing desk it's virtually impossible to find a source for telling a user that he has to delete file X and then rebuild his desktop by holding option-command-C at startup, so the demands for a source seem looser there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Flame bait Ubuntu comment removed

I removed an unhelpful, flamebait Ubuntu recommendation from Stephan Schulz, from a help-with-Microsoft-Windows thread on the Computing desk:

Extended content
format C:, then see Ubuntu (operating system). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not a helpful response for the reference desk and does not help solve this problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think I reverted it? I want a straight answer, not a flame war between bigots of different OSes. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 20:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We have decided at least once that "Use Ubuntu" or "Use Macintosh" or "Use Linux" or "Use Windows" are not acceptable answers on the Reference Desk when some poor computer user is just trying to get something working on his system. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For those wondering the thread is [11] Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Loss of session date

I was getting this message repeatedly when editing, then followed their advice to log out, then it wouldn't let me log back in, now I seem to be logged in without having done so. Is anyone else having similar probs with Wikipedia ? StuRat (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not I, but a more useful place to ask this would be the Village Pump or WP:HELP, not here. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref Desk archive search function

I'm really impressed by this, but do have two requests:

1) While it finds the individual Q in question, picking the link doesn't take you to that section, but rather just the top of the relevant archive page. And, since you may not know the name of the section, this may require an additional in-page search (Control F). Could the search tool be altered to take us directly to the desired Q ?

2) The search function at the top of the "All" Ref Desk page (Wikipedia:Reference_desk) isn't the archive search, but just a general Wikipedia search (same as the one on lhe left side ?). Can we change this ? StuRat (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely prefer switching around the ref desk search bar to be an archive search. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Music desk

Although I am not a great fan of music, but I think that a having one music desk would be better. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really any need, since there aren't enough questions on music to justify a separate desk. See here for earlier discussion. Personally I favour the status quo – classical music questions go in Humanities, popular music questions in Entertainment. --Richardrj talk email 12:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But, I think at least 6-7 questions come daily, probably?? And for music fans. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, I count 13 music questions (out of 33 total questions) on the seven (and a bit) visible days of the Entertainment desk — and I'm counting "What is Lil' Wayne's email address" as a 'music' question. Out of fifty-some questions on Humanities, just one is related to music — but it's counted under Entertainment because someone already moved it across to the other Desk (and left a suitable link behind). Misc has 3 (one about a YouTube video, one about a historical musical instrument, one about an a cappella group) out of 65 questions. It appears to me that we're getting about 2 music questions per day, on average: sixteen questions in a bit more than seven days.
So it looks like the traffic wouldn't justify another Desk, and it appears that our readers generally don't have trouble finding the correct category. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to build consensus... I agree. The current desks easily handle all music questions. -- kainaw™ 14:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. I generally try to answer music questions when possible and I think the current layout is fine. 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need a Music Desk, both for the reasons listed above and because I couldn't, in good conscience, categorize the noise coming out of modern radio stations as "music". :-) StuRat (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to state it in a more polite way: Every generation will have their popular little boy band. They can't all have the Beatles. -- kainaw™ 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Richardrj: Not sure I agree with your division (classical music on Humanities but popular music on Entertainment). The legend directs all music questions to Entertainment. It would make little sense to fragment music in the way you suggest. Sure, we all have our likes and dislikes, but that doesn't make one genre more entertaining and another more arty-farty. They're equally entertaining, and they're equally worthy of serious academic study. But our convention here is to deal with them all on the Entertainment desk. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Geography desk

And what about geography desk? --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments put forth against the creation of a Music desk apply to this as well. See #Music desk 82.43.89.71 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk, which includes links to virtually all of the "we need a new X desk" discussions we've had over the years. Note that most discussions end with no new desk created. Unless you present a compelling argument for why questions being asked at the desk presently aren't being usefully addressed by the present desk structure (and why/how the proposed new desk would fix this), we're not likely to implement a new desk. — Lomn 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More ref desks?

take it to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How can I go about campaigning for or why do we not have, a religion ref desk and a History ref desk but specifically a religion ref desk, imagine the interesting questions, and the funny answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The ref desk is not for stirring up controversy for its own sake. — Lomn 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The reference desk talk page is the place to raise suggestions on how to improve the reference desks. I'm not sure there is a need for 'more' desks, people seem happy to ask questions on the relevant (or sometime not relevant) desk, I doubt we get less 'religion' or 'history' questions because we don't have a desk specifically titled for them. infact a seemingly large number of the humanities-desk questions are history/religion related. Still if you want to campaign the talk-page is a good place to start194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk and use the Reference Desk talk page if you're still keen. --Sean 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed before and well discussed. I have not seen any changes that would warrant me changing my opinion on the matter, but it would be erroneous to consider me alone as a statistically meaningful sample. Googlemeister (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Religion and History questions go to the Humanities desk. Unless that suddenly gets overwhelmed there's no point in splitting it up. (Adding new desks won't generate questions, obviously, just split up the ones we would have gotten anyway.) APL (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not at all obvious that having a separate desk won't generate questions. However, a specifically-religion desk could easily descend into a lightning rod of endless debates. Meanwhile, the "entertainment" desk could probably be folded back into the humanities desk (as it once was, if I recall correctly) as it doesn't really see a lot of traffic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And to add to the above, the reference desks are not (always) about creating funny answers. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
To give some sense of the OP's general seriousness, check this out:[12] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
WTF?!?! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That was pretty much my reaction also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Beware the Genetic fallacy. An IP address does not necessarily identify a single user. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
True. And IP users almost never identify who they are. So unless they do, they bear the consequences of what they, or other individuals on the same IP, have done - especially when it's recent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We wouldn't want a nasty thing to happen like a mob of Wikipedians all accidentally pinging 62.172.58.82 in Stevenage, would we BB ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be bad. It could force their internet engine (i.e. their hamster on a spinwheel) to overload and shut down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion should be on the Talk page, as 194.221 said way up there. Those later entrants who couldn't help themselves from piping up here all know better. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed ... something.

I removed this. I'm not even sure what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a question. APL (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, looks like the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic to me. Either that or it's the TRUTH and you are the evil CIA agent sent to silence him. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
what are you guys talking about - seems clear as day to me. the answer is "Greta Garbo". --Ludwigs2 04:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You guys read the whole thing? I got bored at the third nonsensical sentence about Carl Sagan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to the Language desk in hopes someone can translate it into English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
heck, I'd be happy if they just translated it into language --Ludwigs2 15:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You got that far? Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OMG! Wikipedia is a part of the conspiracy
- I posted a long question there -
AND IT JUST VANISHED!!!!!!!
How can this be a coincidence???!?!?

SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting mean spirited. It was a good removal, and now let's drop it. Buddy431 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Buddy431: well said, thanks. -- Scray (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
For further information, please check this reference. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, do the words "In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question" mean anything to anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The only thing resembling a question within that essay also answers itself: "Who said an 'universe exists' not needing to be created was Carl Sagan, adding, 'I wonder if you can.' " I don't see any other questions within it, although I merely skimmed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a handy argument: "It wasn't in the form of a question as such, so none of the rules apply". What about civility? What about not biting newcomers? This talk page is just as open to questioners as it is to respondents. It's fine to remove an inappropriate post, but to then descend into a childish jokefest about it is not the way to go. If that's the way you get your joy, you need to get out more. StuRat's comment about "the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic" was pretty off, I must say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I get it, we're playing Jeopardy. "I'll take Conspiracy Theories for 1,000 razzbuckniks, Alex... [Alex reads the rant] ...What is Mein Megillah, by I.M. Meshugge?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't merit a response, as Stu has already struck the post in question. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(Unindenting.) That part wasn't meant as a joke, Jack, I really do suspect that something isn't right with the mental state of people who leave posts like that. I see your point about them reading it, though, so will strike my post. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
best not to engage in clinical diagnoses (over the net, mind you) without a license. diagnostic categories were not invented for casual or pejorative use. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, we do need to make some type of judgment. I would normally say that if somebody makes an inappropriate post, we should explain to them exactly what was wrong with it and make suggestions as to how they could improve it. However, I suspect (and I bet I'm not alone) that any attempt at communication with this individual will only cause further trouble. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe boxing it with a heading "inappropriate post" would have worked? I am continually amazed that no consensus can ever seem to be reached about how to handle such goofy stuff. It's been debated time after time here, with no agreement. And that ain't no joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks, Stu. The same thought crossed my mind, but we're in no position to diagnose this condition. Even if we were, sufferers of it deserve treatment and support, not ridicule. Psychiatrists don't have private conversations in which they crack jokes at the expense of their clients. We're professionals too; and if we're not, we have no business being here. I have too-close-to-home real world experience of paranoid schizophrenia - but I think I'd feel this way even if that were not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
First, how do you know they don't? Second, the OP here (APL) should have just zapped it with a brief edit summary and let it be, rather than bringing it here. It doesn't require anybody else's permission to clobber such obvious nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Some people want feedback on their actions. If you remove something wrongly, and no-one notices, you don't get told, and you don't learn. I've only made a removal once and I was quick to come here and check with everyone that I'd done it right. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
And he got feedback in spades. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As desperate as you are for the last word, you must still surely realise that by acknowledging my response, you're conceding that I'm right and that, by extension, you're wrong? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. You're fully, totally, 100 percent right. OK, can I have my 1,000 razzbuckniks now? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
"They did it (or you can't prove they didn't), so why can't I" - is that your standard of behaviour, Bugs? As for clobbering: this is the second time in the last 3 threads where you've been more than happy to be involved in chatting about a post, then you tell us that chat should not have happened. In this case, first you tell us it "should be moved to the Language desk in hopes someone can translate it into English", but now it should have been removed outright without discussion - a discussion to which you yourself were a party. How is anyone supposed to keep up with your constantly shifting positions? You seem to want to be all things to all men. Hail, Caesar Baseballicus! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I am now thoroughly convinced that when God was issuing the sense of humor, you were out to lunch. Unless you're also being funny with the above? Regarding the Caesar bit, I was Caesar once, but no longer - that was in my salad days. :) I was institutionalized for awhile - they locked me in the Caesarian section, with a berth. :) I was once with a pal at lunch during a time when food was rationed. I caught him double-dipping. I asked him, "Et two, Brute?" :) Ironically, it was a Kaiser roll. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
And I am thoroughly convinced that you have a pathological addiction to making jokes, no matter what the subject (not that I'm making a formal diagnosis, mind you; I'm just a simple layman - but I do have eyes). Just because it's possible to find humour in any subject, doesn't mean you actually have to do that in every possible case. Time and place, mate, time and place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't "have to" do anything, I choose to. But didn't you find that rant funny? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Then can you please sometimes (or often, even) exercise your powers of choice, and choose NOT to make a joke. You don't have to be a slave to your urges. Anyone who's followed my progress around here for the past 6 years knows that I have a very well-developed sense of humour; but they also know that I use it sparingly, and judiciously. Humour around here is the exception, not the rule; but you generally honour that approach in the breach rather than the observance. Always having chocolate cake leads to a lessening of desire for it. (And no, I didn't get a laugh out of it; mainly because I twigged, as most people would have, that it was from someone who needs help, and not from someone who came here to be laughed at.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not a slave to my urges. I freely choose my actions, and restrain myself more than you might imagine. And in this particular case, I would rather have communicated with the OP to find out more about what he was trying to get at. I didn't jump to any conclusion about his mental state, like some of y'all did - I concluded only that he was trying to get at something but not saying it very clearly. It's still soapboxing and doesn't belong on the ref desk, but maybe it belongs somewhere (I've seen worse rants on user pages). Going through the history of the ref desk the other day was eye-opening, as I could see that a corps of you guys have been supporting the ref desk for 6-odd years and have arrived at the mistaken notion that you own it. Ownership is not allowed in wikipedia. Furthermore, you were having the same kinds of debates 6 years ago. Maybe it's time to head off some of these problems at the pass, by setting up and agreeing upon some rules, instead of having the same debates over and over again (as noted below) - unless you enjoy those debates? Hopefully not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't know where on earth you got that idea about ownership from. "Setting up and agreeing upon some rules" - how about checking in @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines once in a while, particularly at "Content and tone". Them's the rules around here, which everyone is expected to abide by. Sure, they're guidelines rather than iron-clad rules, so there's flexibility. Sure, they were settled more than a couple of years ago now, and more recent arrivals may not be aware of the colossal amount of work that went into getting them to that stage. But nothing's set in stone here, and if you want to change some rule or guideline, you know the process for proposing it. I for one am always open to good ideas, and have no sense of proprietorship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Then why was there a need for this thread in the first place, calling undue attention to that rant? Just zap it and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, APL deleted it and came here to check he/she'd done the right thing. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Then the weirdness started straight away. Then two editors said it was going off the rails. Then you virtually accused them of being killjoys. Then I reminded you of the guidelines about not poking fun at poorly worded questions. Then you went off the rails, as you so often do. And here we are. And here I say goodbye. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary to ask about it. It was obviously junk. Asking about it was not necessary, but within the rules; but by calling attention to it, it invited other comments because of its total weirdness. And if the nannies hadn't stepped in, the sarcasm would have run its course earlier. Although when you (apparently) took seriously my comment about posting it on the language page, I didn't know what to think. It's obviously English, it's just gobbledygook, posted here for no apparent reason. And it did not contain a question. It was merely a rambling lecture about several topics. On any other page, it would have been zapped without question. So how about a separate sub-page for removals, or a separate section, or something? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I told you why people bring things like this to the talk page before, and you admitted I was right. I'm confused as to why you're still asking about it. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You're confused, Vimescarrot? We've now had the same editor telling us:
  • it should have been moved to the Language ref desk for a translation (this was apparently meant to be taken as a joke, although not marked as such)
  • it should have been boxed with the heading "inappropriate post"
  • it should have been zapped without further ado
  • he would have liked to communicate with the OP to find out more
  • it was obviously junk and gobbledygook
  • it was wrong to do anything to draw attention to it
so it's no wonder the rest of us are confused as to what his actual viewpoint is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The "moving it to the Language Desk" part was obviously a joke, at least to me. StuRat (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Bugs marks most of his posts with a smiley, and most of them are jokes, so there's a correspondence there. That one was not marked, so it was reasonable to conclude he meant it seriously. He did later clarify that, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I only use the smiley, myself, when the joke might be mistakenly taken seriously. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The right way to handle it was the way you would on any other page. It's not a question at all, it's a rant; at best, a rant aimed at the wrong page. So delete it, and in the edit summary specify WP:SOAP. Voila, she is done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I do think that removals should be posted here. Otherwise people start removing things right and left, even things they have no good reason to remove, like this one: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Israel_and_the_Palestinians.2C_responses_removed. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, now you're talking. A "standard" of some kind. How about this: A separate sub-page, called "Removals", or some such, where any text removed can be re-posted or referenced, and see if there are any objections. That would be a more formalized approach than the current seemingly haphazard approach of trying to decide whether to zap it, box it, or chide the OP for posting something that's inappropriate or (gasp!) to the wrong desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Or we can just post notices of removals here like we have been. Keep it simple. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
And a link to the "diff" of the removal is fine, no need to post it all directly here, as sometimes it's a huge amount. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic here, but can I just asy that this is one of the most fun talkpages I've seen on Wikipedia. And that's saying something.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 10:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling - "how many dando can you fit in a doorway??"

For the benefit of non-UK editors, this "question" is a clear reference to the murder of Jill Dando, just as the "questioner"'s earlier post above alluded to the death of Stuart Lubbock. I suggest those who know about the best procedures here take some necessary action. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dandy Fleur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have advised him to stop it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, what happened to his talk page and contributions? Did they get deleted? By who? I hate it when this stuff just disappears from the face of the Earth without any explanation. Buddy431 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, typo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks. I see the posts got clobbered on the desk. Probably a good thing. Buddy431 (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And he is now blocked. Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cuddlyable3, 16 April 2010

{{editprotected}} At the top right of the page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk there is a box called "Shortcut WP:RD". Please someone make it work because when I click on it I get only the same talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The box is intended to be informative, not a link to elsewhere. WT:RD is shortcut lingo for this page. hydnjo (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) It's actually WT:RD, and it's intended as a shortcut to this page you are currently on. There is nothing wrong here. --Richardrj talk email 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
And it has two parts, the first being a link to "shortcut". Cuddlyable's point would be that we don't normally have self-referential links on pages. However, the same thing is done on the main page, as WP:RD. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Check the top of WP:RD :) hydnjo (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking to copyright-violating sites on the RD

See debate here. Further comments welcome. (I didn't know whether it was best to move, copy or link to the original dialogue.) --Richardrj talk email 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is misleading. The Q isn't whether we should link to copyright-violating sites, but whether we should edit the posts of others, to remove links, without proof that they do violate a copyright. That is, without knowing if the original author gave permission to the linked site to post their material. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
That may be what you're about, but it's not what I'm about. The website you linked to is clearly a copyvio website, it doesn't take a genius to work that out. Therefore the title is perfectly accurate. --Richardrj talk email 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) I'll copy what's been put on the desk here:

I removed the link to a copyvio lyrics site. --Richardrj talk email 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And I've restored it. Copyright status gives us a reason to remove it from an article, but not a talk page like this, AFAIK. Do you have any policy that says you can do that ? If not, then the policy on not editing the talk page posts of others rules here. StuRat (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
here ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of that linked section talks about a "Wikipedia article", and there is no mention of talk pages in that section. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) There is also WP:ELNEVER, which says much the same thing. StuRat's point, however, is that these policies only apply to article space, not to the reference desk. The point is moot, there is probably no guidance that explicitly refers to copyvio links on the RD, but the spirit of the thing is clear: no linking to copyvio sites. --Richardrj talk email 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(Please use small text to indicate comments which aren't answers to the original Q.) Policy regarding articles is moot. If there's a policy on talk page links, then that would apply to the Ref Desk. If not, then there is no policy on links here. Also note that we have no indication that the band objects to their lyrics being posted at that site, as it's difficult to imagine how they suffer financial harm from it. Indeed, it may be considered free advertising for their music. Do you have any indication that they object ? StuRat (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) You seem to think that "moot" is a synonym of "irrelevant", which it is not. Anyway, lack of a policy on this is neither here nor there. Just because there is no policy on copyvio links on the RD, doesn't mean you can just go ahead and link to copyvio sites here regardless. Ask yourself whether the spirit of the ban on copyvio links in article space ought to apply here. If your answer is "yes" – and I don't see how it can't be – then you should not link to them, regardless of whether there is a policy on the matter. --Richardrj talk email 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary:moot does mean irrelevant, at least in North America. See def 2. When I ask myself if article rules should apply to talk pages like this, the answer is a resounding "no", since articles require a much higher standard. For comparison, first imagine if someone wrote "He's a retard" in an article about a person with limited mental abilities. It would be appropriate to change it to say "He's suffering from mental retardation". Now imagine that this was posted on the talk page for that article. Would it be appropriate to edit the post to change the wording ? No, although it would be fine to post a follow-up suggesting the proper term. The same thing applies here. If you want to post a follow-up saying that you believe that site violates copyright laws, that's fine, but don't change the posts of others, unless there's a policy specifically for talk pages that says you are allowed to do so. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone do that fancy show/hide thing on this subthread? I don't know how to do that. I disagree entirely – the same reasons for not copyvio-linking in article space should apply here, i.e. that directing others to copyvio material may be considered contributory copyright infringement and sheds a bad light on Wikipedia. On your last point – policy schmolicy, we always redact people's email addresses from here although there's no policy telling us to should do so. --Richardrj talk email 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you really feel this needs debating, take it to the ref desk talk page so that everyone can get involved. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, see here. --Richardrj talk email 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The post in question is on the Entertainment desk on April 14, 2010, here Buddy431 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that the policy says "without exception". It does not specify that it only applies to the article namespace. The Ref Desk is not an article but site-wide policies (e.g. ones that would apply to talk pages) clearly hold. As for whether the site violates copyright or has it legitimately licensed, I think we can all use a little common sense. It is well-known enough that most generic lyrics sites are willfully engaging in copyright violation, so much so that it is discussed in our lyrics article. It is not much harder to just say, "if you Google the name of the song, it's lyrics come up pretty quickly," which indeed, involves one additional step on behalf of the answerer, but doesn't involve us in violating any Wikipedia rules. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy mentions "articles", but does not mention talk pages, like the Ref Desk, so I see no reason to think it would apply here. Most policies which apply to articles, like requiring sources, clearly do not apply to talk pages. Also, I disagree with the "many are guilty so we should just assume they all are" logic. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The policy does not mention articles or talk pages, it says without exception. The page at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works explicitly says not to link to lyrics sites. It does not draw a distinction between namespaces. The key issue here is that Wikipedia should not link to sites that are blatantly violating copyrights. Using a little common sense would apply that to the Ref Desk in all but the most exceptional of cases. I don't see any really compelling reason here to think that linking to a lyrics site is necessary. Choose your battles! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so someone asks a question, and the only known answer is to an alleged "copyright violation". So, how do you answer the question? Maybe you say, "Gee, we'd like to answer, but that would force us to post a link to a copyright violation, so you're screwed!" Further enhancing wikipedia's reputation. NOT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting anything of the sort. If someone says "what is the lyric to such and such a song", you could answer "Google it". Or, if they're just asking about a line or two, you could quote those lines in the answer, which wouldn't be a copyright violation. --Richardrj talk email 13:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It uses the word "article" right in the first sentence, but never uses the words "talk page" at all, leading me to think it's talking about articles and not talk pages, like the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear to me also, that they're only talking about articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me at all, quite the reverse in fact. I can only reiterate what I said upthread, namely that linking to copyvio sites may be considered contributory copyright infringement and sheds a bad light on Wikipedia. Please explain how, in your opinion, those factors apply only to articles, not to the RD. --Richardrj talk email 13:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The diff is that a post from an individual on a talk page like the Ref Desk is just one person talking, it's not "Wikipedia talking", like the articles are, since they are edited by many. It's like the difference between what a company puts out in an official press release versus what it's employees scribble on a bulletin board. One is official, the other is not. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It starts by talking about "articles", and that's presumably "understood" later in the discussion. However, it could be stated better. Is this something Wales or Godwin could answer definitively, instead of us just trying to figure it out? And meanwhile, how do you answer a question whose answer requires using a "copyright-violating" link? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Side note, this also affects questions like the one last week when a questioner linked us to a torrent site that prominently advertised torrents claiming to feature Photoshop and Windows and such. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That had to do with sites posted by a questioner, and he was told they are doing things illegitimately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, since I almost never shop in the web, and there's no article here on it, what's a "torrent site"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Among the popular torrents is BitTorrent. It's a method to deliver large files as quickly as possible, rather than a client-server download (which stresses the teeny pipe out from the server to the net) torrents uses a peer architecture where if you have just downloaded a chunk of video you also send it back out again to other people looking for the same thing. Franamax (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
On the proximate issue, why not link to a site with fully licensed lyrics like Gracenote or Metrolyrics? [13][14]The gracenote site has a huge cookie in the URL so it may not work as linked. :Problem solved. On the wider issue, I'm on the side where we don't link to obvious or reasonably-determined copyvios, we're talking a project page not a talk page. I generally remove copyvio links on sight. Franamax (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's suppose a questioner posts a youtube site and asks, "What song is playing at such-and-such minutes and seconds?" Too obscure to likely be able to find a valid reference as such. You look at the youtube and you recognize the song, and you also suspect it's a copyright violation. If I'm reading you correctly, that's not really an issue, because it's not being posted in an article. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between what an OP links and what a responder links (IMO). A question could easily fall within fair-use comment if it links to a copyvio (unless, you know, 400 questions about Avril Lavigne lyrics show up). Responders should avoid copyvio'ing links in favour of general suggestions of where and how to search. The distinction here is between pages that have " talk:" in them (where wide latitude is often granted) and those which do not. Non-talk pages are the outside-facing part of the project and deserve extra scrutiny. Your hypothetical question is a tough one, since the only available answer might be a followup link to another copyvio Youtube video of the original band performance. I'll answer it with "bleaghh" and continue to favour the edit summary of "rmv link to copyvio site". :) Franamax (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above approach. I think when possible one should avoid linking to obviously copyvio sites. That seems to be pretty straightforward. But one has to use your judgment. On this sort of thing I do think it is important to "choose your battles," as I said earlier. If you don't really need to post the link to the obviously copyvio lyrics site, then don't. If you really really need to, then do. We are adults (for the most part) and we are reasonable (for the most part) and do things in good faith and with good intentions. If people disagree, well, that's what talk pages are for. We should feel free to disagree and to hash over boundary cases. But the general principle that avoiding links to obvious copyvio sites is a good one and a Wikipedia-wide one and should probably be observed more often than it is not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_70&oldid=1147949010"