Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

splash page

following on from the above discussion - what happened to the splash page - ie shouldn't we have a quick guide to using the ref desks somewhere - for posters and answerers..? You know - the one that used to say 'Be patient... the wiki ref desk people are volunteers etc' - is it still around?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That verbiage is right at the top of the page (at least it is for Misc, which is what I just checked). Right above where it also says "after reading the above, click here to ask a question". --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely right - couldn't see it for the trees..
Resolved
87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reposting

If your wondering why I'm reposting again, it's because I needed to include what other people said for exchange of ideas. (Someone could come along and read something and get an idea they otherwise would not of if the replies to my question was not included.)68.148.164.166 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. --Richardrj talk email 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
He's talking about this, which I removed as a request for medical advice. The only new material he added was description of his own symptoms. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that if someone answers your question then that answer would make others better able to answer your question? If so, I disagree. The main point here is that your question should have been clear enough in the first place so that if anyone knew the answer, they would answer it. At its best, the Refdesk provides references: the OP asks for a reference and the answerer provides the reference. Exchanging ideas isn't a function of the desk.
If your question had been wrongly interpreted (and archived), I would consider it acceptable to start a new post with a new question if you feel that the original question wasn't answered. You should link to the original question and clearly explain what it is you are looking for. But all of this would have been avoided if you had asked the question clearly the first time. If, on the other hand, your question had been interpreted the way you wanted it but you weren't looking for an answer but a discussion, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, not literally an exchange of ideas, but when one reads replies from many different people, an exchange of ideas happens.68.148.164.166 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The IP OP is another "bumper", who has repeatedly been asked and/or told not to do so. --LarryMac | Talk 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to form an anti-bumper posse? If so, will we get badges? -- kainaw™ 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't need no stinkin' badges. -- Coneslayer (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The OP has done it again, more reposting of "Pubic Hairs" at the Science desk. I have given them their second warning, if they continue they will get blocked. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I just left a looong note on his talk page. Hopefully he stops but if he doesn't, I would agree to a short block. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Eating cancer cell

I'm past caring but is Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Eating_cancer_cell medical advice or not?87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say nah. Far too "out there". Very hypothetical. I don't think I've ever seen a study on this tinfoil-hat topic. Fribbler (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical diagnosis

OK, I've given general advice but pretty definite one, so beat me. OTOH, the OP did see the doctor and his question was a good one, and quite general (it fit me too at a specific time, for example, so I answered). --Ayacop (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your reply is legitimate, it is not medical advice but advice on the medical diagnosis process which is a scientific method. I think the validity of the question and the reply stands. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Here's the diff. Not sure about your "Thirdly, ..." - will garlic do that everytime and for everyone? Seems like the OP is asking how professionals would diagnose his/her infection as opposed to how to DIY a diagnosis. So the question is good and excluding that garlic stuff (which may be legitimate, I'm not sure) your answer was also fine. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
We definitely should not be posting "guaranteed folk remedies" that are sure to cure infections doctors cannot cure. Edison (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Please don't post folk remedies or other treatments. In addition to possibly having antibiotic activity, ingesting substantial amounts of garlic will have other effects on the body. Garlic is known to have anti-clotting activity; consult a doctor before starting a garlic regimen, particularly if you have a clotting disorder, are on anticoagulant therapy, if you have surgery planned in the near future, etc. It may also have an effect on blood sugar levels (diabetics especially take note). Activity of garlic will depend on the individual involved, and the form and quantity of garlic taken.
And I bet you thought garlic just caused bad breath. Similar cautions apply to most other 'herbal' or 'folk' remedies. One has to remember that the vast majority of FDA-approved drugs are based on chemicals originally isolated from plants, bacteria, and fungi. Aspirin (ASA) is very closely derived from a compound found in willow bark. Antibiotics are based on chemicals secreted by bacteria and fungus. Herbal remedies – the ones that aren't just placebos – work because they contain some sort of drug or drug precursor chemical ingredients, in some quantity, mixed with all the other plant stuff. Assuming that a 'herbal' remedy is safe because it's 'natural' is very dangerous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Idle side question: Is there anyone who seriously thinks that? I mean, there are plenty of 100% natural substances that are highly toxic. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You'd be amazed. A good friend of mine is a cardiac care nurse, and she says that it's not uncommon to see patients who are mixing garlic pills with their warfarin because they just don't know any better. In response to questions about drugs and supplements they may be taking, many of these patients will neglect to mention the garlic because it's 'natural' and 'harmless'. Some patients will also start taking garlic some time after they've been prescribed an anticoagulant; then there's no chance at all for a pharmacist to throw up a flag.
I grant you that I exaggerated slightly when I said people think that 'natural' equates to 'safe'. Most people don't go eating random mushrooms in the woods, and very few people will tuck in to a snack of all-natural horse manure. The problem is that a lot of people don't realize or acknowledge that 'natural' and 'herbal' remedies contain sometimes-potent pharmaceutical ingredients, and that these preparations can have side effects and drug interactions just like all other over-the-counter medications. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Herbal/folk remedies are a big problem in modern medicine. If you ask a patient what medications he or she is taking, you will only hear about prescriptions (and rarely ALL of them). You will not hear about the piles of herbal/folk remedies he or she is using - or even strange diets. Imagine trying to treat a woman who fails to tell you that she is currently doing a 3-week diet where she drinks a can of tomato juice for breakfast and then only eats watermelon the rest of the day. You'd think that an ounce of intelligence would make the patient think that it is important to bring up such things, but most humans are amazing in that they are able to appear to function in society without the least bit of actual intelligence. So, many doctors are trained now to ask, "Are you taking any medications? Are you taking any diet supplements or herbal treatments? Are you on a special diet? ..." -- kainaw™ 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
And going beyond the folk-remedy issue, which did contravene the no-medical-advice restriction, the thread also produced some soapboxing about how the problem is "nationalized health-care"; advice to obtain treatment in another country; and advice to contact other medical practitioners. The last two are suggestions to spend money, which we probably shoudn't be doing at a Science reference desk. Franamax (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Umpf, thanks for your concerns but, for the comfort of your souls, be assured that I've never been tempted to take any relevant amount of garlic, although this would be an excellent way to spare me of the close presence of many unpleasant citizens as well as grant me a spacious seat in the subway. I seriously do well reckon that we can do great things with "healthy living", but there are no standard advices possible. There is a story that enlights what's called empiric science.

There was a quack that tried to cure a cobbler from fever but nothing worked until some day, the cobbler regained his appetite and ate all of an huge pot of sauerkraut. The next day the fever was gone. The quack wrote down in his booklet: "sauerkraut good against fever". Some days later the lank tailor got ill with fever, and the quack forced him to eat a huge pot of sauerkraut. Next day the tailor was dead. So the quack crossed out the lines about sauerkraut in his booklet and replaced it with the newly established knowledge: "sauerkraut god for cobblers, bad for tailors". 77.3.134.249 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice story, reminds me of the one that ends with "if you cut all four legs off a frog, the frog becomes deaf" (he was cutting the legs off one at a time and shouting "jump, frog"). We don't really care about your health at all, we just care about our policies ;) I'm a garlic aficionado myself, just because it tastes soo good - try roasting whole cloves and squeezing them out on toast. In retrospect though, did that thread give you any benefit? And in light of our overall policy on medical advice in general, do you think we should have even allowed it? Franamax (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Difficult question. Overall: yes, it reassured me that I was not missing anything obvious. But then: no, a real benefit would have been being able to tell my doctor: "Well, look, there's method XY, even on wikipedia, ;-) for all to see, easy to use, cheep to apply, recognizing 1234 different infecting agents personally by name and some tenth of thousands more by species. No need for your precious broadband antibiotics reserved for your adored soccer players, just give me one of those specialized drugs that kills off my special guests, I'll pay for it in cash, see, it's not on your budget, and if you're not allowed to do that for no good reason just give me name and address than I'll deleted because I don't want to go to prison ... ".
On the subject of medical advice: there really are people on the net that would kill themselves if you'd advice a guillotine against headaches and there would be people giving advices like that, honestly believing what they are telling. 77.3.134.249 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't we see it in the news reports? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

AstroHurricane001 semi-retired

Hi. I'm a regular contributor to the Reference Desk, but I will likely not be able to contribute much more starting this July. As a result, I might not be answering questions when I usually would have. I will still edit, and maybe sometimes check the desks, but will not have much time to do so. Best wishes, ~AH1(TCU) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Take care, AH1. -- Coneslayer (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Bon Voyage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Bon courage and hope all is well as your world speeds up. Glad wiki's not losing you altogether and thanks for your company, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Um, it turns out (unexpectedly) that I will no longer be semi-retiring, so I will probably still contribute to the desks when I can. Sorry about any confusion/trouble/hassle, but thank you for your warm messages anyway. It's still possible that I may have to semi-retire in the near future, though. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back!!! (oops proper i.d. follows) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot?

So is there any opposition to the proposal to allow cluebot on the RD? Would it be okay if we tried it for a few days, perhaps on the science desk and computing (where questions on stuff like the word 'fuck' etc are unlikely)? Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh don't know, if I recall cluebot correctly 'your edit has been identified as vandalism' because - I did something.. - but don't let me stand in the way of progess, let cluebot come, and if innocent lives are marred in the process - so be it, Long Live Progess!87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously though doesn't cluebots's bell go off if a section is deleted? archiving?.. just checking87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been no objection since I proposed it a week ago. Since then I've learned more about it, and discovered that there's even less reason to worry -- that is, it's even less likely than I first thought that ClueBot will do something we don't like. (In particular, my own experiments[1] at User:ClueBot/Sandbox suggest that a logged-in user could ask about the propriety of saying "fuck you" on New Zealand radio and such.)

So I say go for it. I'll turn it on tomorrow unless someone objects or does it first. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[P.S. Looks like ClueBot isn't currently set up to revert anontalk spam, though. —scs]

Btw, I think we should use it on all the desks. We're just testing here and if it does anything uncool, we're here to revert. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as logged-in users are checking all the edits it makes, ready to quickly revert whenever it reverts an anon asking about something that sets it off. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Cluebot will revert the anontalk spam if the page content is blanked is the process (which is usually what happens when he spams us) see this edit and cluebot's revert I think the reason it didn't work in Ummit's test was because the edit didn't blank any content. Also, Cluebot whitelists all logged in users and only reverts anon edits. JessicaN10248 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. [2] Seven desks, plus this talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we going for angry mode (otherwise it'll only revert each desk once per day)? Algebraist 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Good point. I didn't pay enough attention to that distinction.
But let's let it run as-is for a few days or a week, to see what kind of stuff it reverts, before going full-bore with the "angry mode". —Steve Summit (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Has cluebot caught anyone yet - how can I check easily how many "kills" it's made on the reference desk?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The simplest way is probably to look at ClueBot's contributions to the wikipedia space [3] and the answer appears to be nothing yet. Even my attempt to get cluebot to remove something seemed to fail (someone did remove it in several minutes but I don't think ClueBot takes that long normally). Not really sure why... Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Very good. That's more or less the query I was thinking of trying to construct, but I hadn't worked it out yet. Thanks.
To people trying it: if it seems to be taking forever, it's because it's collating the last 500 edits. If you want something quicker, try this one, which is for just 20 edits. (And then you can use the normal edit-history navigation links if you want to go back and see more.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Er I realised now why ClueBot did't revert my contribution. It's down... Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library

Please consider publicizing on the project page Wikipedia:Reference desk the categories at Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This category seems to distill down to just one member. Publicizing the Wikipedia Library might be a better idea. Franamax (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving questions Redux

I don't understand why Entertainment questions at the Misc desk are getting moved, when the querent specifically states her desire to have them answered at the Misc desk, while plenty of misplaced Science or Humanities (and even Math) questions don't get moved from the Misc desk, when no such desire was expressed, and even though the corresponding desks actually would have more of specialists answering them. I'm not suggesting moving the Sci and Humanities questions too (on the contrary), but why be didactic toward those people who actually explain their choice and preference of desks? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Ent desk doesn't get any traffic but I don't think we should allow OPs to intentionally ask questions on the Misc desk when a specialist desk exists to deal with those questions (it makes the specialist desk pointless, IMO). I would agree to a deletion of the Ent desk to solve this problem. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I fully agree with Jack's comments here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
See January and March too for completeness' sake. I'm all for promoting the Entertainment desk, and I guess these moves do just that. So that's a reason right there. I saw the querent's counter-intention as a strange reason for moving. For me, it would be a reason to leave the question and respect the expressed preference. But whatever, I see your point. I certainly don't wish to see the Entertainment desk landing on the scrap heap. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


If you read that thread, it looks like the voters got confused on whether they were voting for a merge or a rename. Let's do one now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Humanities with Entertainment

The following was posted by user:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back in the link above:
For a very long time the Entertainment desk has been the ugly, low-traffic duckling of the Reference Desks. Many questions there go unanswered, and the quality of the answers is often inferior to those on WP:RD/H. Part of this problem has to do with the nature of the questions asked--I will concede that--but I honestly believe more and better answers would be forthcoming if the questions were visible on a forum with higher traffic.

Regulars at the Humanities desks might initially bristle at the sudden influx of questions about sporting teams and pop groups, but I'm sure they would get over it eventually--and they could easily ignore the questions that fell outside their areas of interest. Besides, I firmly believe that the line between high and low culture is a contrived and nebulous one. So, if there are no objections....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JackOfOz mentioned:
Yes, the line between high and low culture can probably be called contrived and nebulous; but for many people there is only one significant culture - popular or traditional, depending on their tastes. I'm fairly indifferent to this proposal either way, but if it fails, I'd like to see the Entertainment desk renamed "Popular Culture". That seems to capture the flavour of most of the questions that turn up there; and I'm sure those who are interested in more traditional culture, who tend to go to the Humanities desk, would be shocked to think we don't consider classical music, for example, as "entertainment". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate whether or not you support merging the Entertainment and Humanities Desks. If this fails, we'll do another vote regarding a name change. If it goes through, we can decide on a new name and what to do with sports afterwards. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point.. but looking at the past week on the ent. desk shows a good level of activity (as many questions as maths?) and the questions seem to be being resolved.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not support It's just a different crowd, and a different hmm high-falutinness for want of a better word. It is useful to have the nebulous distinction: a place for "popular" questions on anime, video games, the Simpsons, boy bands, football, etc., and a place for "high culture" questions on philosophy, history, "highbrow" literature, etc. Before the creation of the Entertainment desk, we sometimes got series of manga questions sitting badly between Oswald Spengler and Elizabethan literature. (See also the links provided by Zain above). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    I guess that makes sense but I believe that the problem of unanswered (and unasked) questions on the Ent desk is a bigger issue. I'm not that observant but, IMHO, if Larry goes on a break the Ent desk will collapse. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merger (or rename if we head that direction). Something needs to be done about the Entertainment Desk. When people are posting entertainment questions to the Misc. Desk, not in error, but because they believe the entertainment desk will let them down, then we have a problem. The Ents. Desk appears to have become something of a question ghetto or quarantine. A desk that contributors can safely ignore because the questions are "probably about Pokemon, anyway". I know I'm guilty of thinking this way about it and only visit the desk when pangs of conscience push me to visit. It shouldn't be this way. I think a merger with the Humanities Desk, or a rename (to what i don't yet know) could solve the problem. And there is a problem. Fribbler (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: While this reasoning is sensible, I would like to point out that I (and I know others as well) do used to and vow to again regularly scan the Entertainment desk, looking for questions where I can help out. Pokémon just doesn't happen to be one of "my" topics, but I give it a shot with TV or cinema, popular music, or sports questions, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Reply: I accept that. Not everyone is as jaded as me :-) I suppose my main point is that it seems that some questioners are losing confidence in the desk (and explicitly stating that they feel they will get no (good) answers there). That's what worries me and I think something should be done. What that something is though, I'm not too sure but I hope this debate generates some suggestions. Fribbler (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - as I mentioned in one of the Misc sections last night, not putting a question on Ents and then saying that Ents doesn't get any traffic is bit of a closed loop. As near as I can see, one person indicated this loss of confidence by posting his questions at Misc and making a point of saying why; it's hardly an overwhelming trend. I guess I'm weird, I have all the desks on my watchlist, and I answer questions when I am able to provide references. I don't do much on Maths, which means my parents wasted all that money sending me to school for a BSMath, but that's a whole nother story. --LarryMac | Talk 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What is overwhelming is the lack of traffic on the Ent desk. This means that full answers are less likely and incorrect answers are less likely to be spotted. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed. --LarryMac | Talk 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Some stats then
  • This isn't the first time a question that should have been on the Ent desk, was put on the Misc desk on purpose. If memory serves, Fat Man... himself did that once. So even a regular believed that an Entertainment question would get a better answer on another desk despite the existence of a specialist entertainment desk. I fully agree with him.
  • During June, there were 107 more questions on Hum than Ent (275 vs 168)
  • Of the 36 questions asked at the Ent desk this week, 10 were IMHO given full answers. All of the others (and even some of the 10) could have done with more input.
  • Of the 5 people who have contributed so far to this thread, at least three of us admit to seeing the Ent desk as something of an "effort" (I too make a conscious decision to try to go there more often).
I can't think of an easy way to quantify the value of the responses and the responders and general visitors at the Ent desk but OPs wouldn't intentionally post at the wrong desk if they had much confidence in the Ent desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another recent example of an editor shunning the ents desk. Fribbler (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the leap from low traffic to low quality is a big one. One might just as easily say that the low traffic means that the people who make the (apparantly strenous) effort to answer on Ents are the small subset who are most highly qualified to do so, and that each and every answer is a gem! As far as "full answers" go - when presented with a question like "I heard this song once, and it had some notes in it, what's it called?" there's only so much one can do. It's not going to make a difference which desk that gets posted on. And finally, I'm completely baffled by the whole concept of question count implying validity and/or viability. If you want quantity, I supposed we could unleash the AL troll . . . --LarryMac | Talk 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
More questions implies an increased chance of attracting readers (due to more interesting questions). More readers implies better answers (and better scrutiny of others' answers). I also note that at least one of those "What song is this?" questions wasn't answered. Larry, the fact remains that people can (and do) post entertainment questions on the misc desk intentionally. A merge would solve this problem. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Aside from Ent and Misc, each of the other desks have experts who frequent there (e.g. Algebraist at Maths and Angr at Language). Perhaps this is why Ents is so quiet. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Wow, what happens when you go to sleep down here. Hope it's not too late to pop a vote but I don't really understand why an op's (persistent) whim is enough to knock the desks into one another. Also don't get why people see the Ent desk as a loser when some rigorous allocation of questions would pick it up again and the answers are so good. I imagine most of us float around the desks, landing on our best areas so I also don't get why there's a sense of "staff limit" on desks, since if you want to answer, you will. I'm for not getting nervous about asserting the function of any desk because diluting any of them, for me is not the answer. And personally, I feel discouraged when all sorts of stuff messes the aim of a desk and people just get nervous about it instead of doing something about it. I'm happy to moo-oove and moo-oove again if that's okay with others here. I like to make it fun as well so posters can hopefully cope better with it. Hope that's okay, late as it is. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    It is precisely because a lot of us float around that I find this slightly compulsive nervosity about what belongs where unnecessary, and it's the moves that make me nervous. I'm starting to realize that I'm pretty much alone on this, however, and the majority seems to either welcome these moves or not give a hoot. So, yeah, moo-oob the threads around, to your heart's content! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sluzzelin, well my last mooves were because most of the thread started to look like people wanted it moved, but weren't doing that and to save it turning into a move-or-what discussion that detracted from the question, I moved it/them. Didn't mean to make your head spin. Also, I want to acknowledge that a desk's designation can colour the types of answers and understand why the FatMan has posted specifically for that reason in the past, but since like LarryMac and yourself, I watch all except maths, what's to stop the reverse: asking for that kind of answer even as the question appears on the proper desk? Such as, this is a science question, but I'd like some humanities views here as well? Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Julia, since you asked for feedback ("if that's okay with others here", above): I'm generally pro-move and as early in the thread as possible, with the condition that a personal explanatory note, including an internal piped link to the new RD, posted on the OP's Talk page (even if this means creating the page for an unregistered user - I've done so myself), along with the "moved to/moved from" notes on the respective RDs under the OP's original heading. This, to assure possibly clueless and easily intimidated (or offended) OPs that their query is being handled with good faith and due respect, and maximize their chances of finding the relocated query and responses. (I write this from decades of experience in [new] user support.) And please note: what you call "like to make it fun" with good intention, risks eliciting the opposite effect of being perceived as trivializing and condescending. What to you is a light-handed touch sometimes appears (to me) as high-handed. -- Offered in a constructive spirit by Deborahjay (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. For reasons noted by others, and may I add: (a) I don't see this as a nomenclature issue ("High" vs. "Low" culture/brow), but of non-overlapping fields of knowledge. Hum already includes a fairly broad range of academic subjects whose answers (generally) require knowledge acquired through study, and the Q/A action on Ents involves knowledge based upon familiarity with (largely) contemporary, errrr... culture. Myself a product of a U.S. liberal arts education ca. early/mid 1970s and currently working for a historical archive, I help out but still know only a fraction of what's on the Hum desk (also Lang) – but no matter with what good will I cruise the Ents material, I know virtually nothing outside vintage TV and some long-lived bands. (See what StuRat wrote, below.) Then (b), I see this discussion has evolved along the lines of Zain Ebrahim's reasoned concerns about the Entertainment desk – which I believe can be addressed with a recruitment campaign, regarding which I'll start I've started a separate dialogue, below. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose As The Fat Man Who Never Came Back pointed out, the new questions may irk the rd/h regulars. I have the feeling after some drawn out experiences with philosophy articles that some of these regulars may actually be driven away: not only would the quality of the questions be reduced (not that everything isn't fair game here at wp) but the quality of the answers and perhaps wp as a whole would be reeduced as well, since we'd potentially be losing some committed experts. As JackofOz suggested, renaming "Entertainment" to "Popular Culture" might focus desired attention to it and increase traffic. --Shaggorama (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be ok to prematurely summarise that there is no consensus/overall support for a merge, and to continue as normal, with the disclaimer that if confidence collapses in the ent. desk the subject can be re-visted?

I also note no real problems with the ent. desk excluding isolated examples.

And note that people (me) have been moving questions to 'better' desks for years with no problems/complaints and seeming to get good answers because(/in spite of?) the move...87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to sum up, consensus is clearly against a merge. Hopefully this has increased "awareness" (I'm sure there's a better word) and questions will continue to be moved despite the OPs' intentions. I don't think a rename will help with this particular problem either so it's probably best to revisit this (if necessary) in a few months. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose such a merge. I think the prob with the Ent Desk is we don't have enough kids answering Q's there. I can answer Q's about the Beatles, but don't know much of anything about Pokemon (although I still have fun with questions about Pokeyballs), so I can't answer the majority of Q's that get asked there. Note that this prob would only get worse if the Q's were on the Humanities Desk, because very few kids would cruise there. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deborahjay, well thanks for the feedback because it showed me how easily things can be mis-read on the page. I was asking not for feedback on my manner, but on going ahead with moves. I am surprised to be seen as high-handed since I've never received a reaction from an OP though people have when they are blunt as in (moved to xx desk) so I am confident that the OPs at least are taking it in the spirit that it's meant. I respect your pedigree[4] (no sarcasm here) on the desks, yet I am happy to bring something fresh so as not to put off contemporary visitors and potential users. Also I like to be free to express what I'm doing more creatively than having a bald template to put in people's posts. (My pov here.) My last intention would be to trivialise the desks or the questions, and my second last would be to see the desks become too "faceless", bureaucratically worded and/or regimented. Thanks for presenting your pov, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
PS those other things you do? I do them too. When I move, I provide a link, welcome them to the pedia as needed. Unless they're from the solid red link brigade. I see from other's posts, I'm in good company. For me, as you, the important thing is to be yourself. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the party, but I liked JackofOz suggestion of renaming "entertainment" to "popular culture." I remember when I first started goofing around on the desks, I ignored that one because, quite frankly, it just hadn't occured to me what was meant by "entertainment" (granted, i still ignorant because it's not my cup of tea, but you catch my drift). I think renaming the desk might increase traffic on the part of op's and editors alike. --Shaggorama (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Perhaps "sports" should explicitly be part of the desk's name then ("Popular culture and sports"). Perhaps not. Unsure. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I like "popular culture". JessicaN10248 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pubic hairs posters

This user User talk:68.148.164.166 is at it again [5]. Unfortunately I see no other choice but to ask for a block [6] given that multiple warnings have come to naught. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if we're allowed to discuss on that page so I'll comment here. In his defence, this is the first time (AFAIK) that he reposted the questions without copying the previous answers as well. I did mention on his talk page that reposting questions with a link to the original (which he didn’t provide) might be okay if you feel the first answer wasn’t good. He may feel that he hasn’t done anything wrong so a revert and a warn is in order but not a block, IMO. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just received a post on my talk page from this user User talk:68.148.164.166 warning against attacking other users, although providing no specific example. I reverted this and consider it vandalism. I can only assume the user is unhappy about me removing their post which I marked as SPAM. I think they are looking for a reaction and I think a forced wikibreak might do them some good. They have had more than enough warnings and are persistenty ignoring these. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, given the way they have handled this, it's unlikely to be acceptable whatever they do. If 68.148 had came to this talk page (which they are clearly aware of) and apologised and asked if they could repost it in the manner Zain suggested or heck, at least asked one of us first then perhaps we would have agreed to allow a single reposting of this question if it wasn't adequetly answered. However rambling about an exchange of ideas (which as was explained is not really the function of the RD) and edit warring against consensus without seeking support to change, or at least clarify that consensus first is clearly not in the wiki spirit. In any case, the question appears to have taken a medical advice turn which is one of the reasons editors started to remove it when the anon started bumping it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure about the block? the user hasn't done that much.. More explanation of why re-asking a question is a pain might be in order..87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[7]? 86.141.89.124 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I am currently being harrassed by 68.148.164.166 and have requested administrator intervention here. The users destructive edits on this reference desk alone give reason enough for a block, however the harrassment is totally unacceptable. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The IP has now been blocked for "harrassing editors, incivility, abuse of process". Jdrewitt (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a bit moot given the harassment Jdr has received but for future reference he's why I felt a block was justified. This user is aware of the talk page here, so has had ample opportunity to explain his or her case and has received multiple warnings from other users (including a detailed explaination from Zain) and has also been reverted by multiple users. I explicitly invited 68 to discuss the matter further here after receiving a response from him/her and I think most of those who have previously issued warnings did as well. As stated above, I'm not completely against 68 reasking the question. I am against 68 completely ignoring multiple complaints, and going against multiple reversions by multiple users which is by definition edit warring. If 68 wants to talk about this, then he or she should have talked about it rather then simply ignoring us. I admit I was initially a bit reluctant to ask for a block as 68 appears to have made constructive edits here and elsewhere but it appears this isn't the only issue he or she has (I see other complaints on the user's talk page) and I think the appearant refusal to take aboard complaints is sufficient for a short block both to minimise further disruption and to clearly send the message that the behaviour is not acceptable Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit curious about the title "Pubic hair posters", and was wondering what sort of tapestries one could design out of pubic hairs, being limited to black, brown, red, and white as one's color palette. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sign in

Just in case you missed this link and before it goes to archive heaven please add youself as I did Sluzzelin did for me (alphabetically and with your (3 tilde) signature). Thank y'all, -hydnjo talk 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recruiting a cadre for the Entertainment Desk

With apologies if this has been discussed in the past (and I'm guilty of not following discussions regularly; I've been busy...), and inspired by StuRat's remark on the recent Merge H & E discussion (23:06, July 4): What do you think of mounting a campaign to identify and tap potential talent for voluntarily patrolling the Entertainment Desk? My suggestion:

  • Write a brief and friendly message titled something like "Popular Culture wants You!", along the lines of "You are cordially invited to visit the Entertainment Desk, ad lib, and take part in fielding the questions posted there." Signed, the "Ref Desk Regulars" (or similar).
  • Post this on the Talk pages of topical WikiProjects in gaming, TV/movies, pop music, etc.
  • Repeat with a slightly different wording, on the User Talk pages of individuals who are notably helping out there already: "Your fellow editors on the Ref Desks have happily noted your helpful contributions, &c...."

What say you (besides, Deborah, you're hopelessly idealistic/compulsive/naive...)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I say it's a grand suggestion! My only amendment would be to add "Deborah will" before each of the three listed items. :P ---Sluzzelin talk 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I've also wondered about filling other gaps by advertising the reference desk in general at various projects ... I know that some users (myself included) sometimes post a specific request for help on talk pages of projects or editors with a certain reputation or user-box (here is where the boxes can come in handy) for individual obscure questions. For example: Somali language translations, arcane nautical questions, and so forth) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I think we should sign it as: "Ref Desk Regulars" unless anyone on that list disagrees. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is a good idea.87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a template could be made to stick on the top of wikiproject talk pages.. something like "The reference desk welcomes your expertise, you can help others by monitoring any pages that you may have topical expertise in. For more details see ..link.." That's assuming they would accept such a thing.. the template would have to be 'slim'. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What I had in mind was to add this as a New section on a Project's talk page in chronological sequence; I doubt a non-project member's commandeering the top space would be appropriate, nor is it likely to be read there. Upon further thought: the message/template might be more effectively posted on the Talk pages of project members, since enlisting there indicates editing intent, though not necessarily a regular reading of the project's Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea, and I agree with Deborahjay. This looks like consensus. Let’s do it! --S.dedalus (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, although I'm a bit worried that this could bring in even more Pokemon questions than it brings in answers. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Status: Between the discussion here and that on Merging Humanities with Entertainment, above, is there some sort of interim consensus that an impending rename of the Entertainment desk to Popular Culture/Sports might succeed in sparking increased action, both posting and responses... and therefore no promotional campaign should be launched at present under the current name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if the desk divisions could match as much as possible the top-level portals, or the eight + misc listed in the top-left corner of the Main Page, or the ten in Template:Browsebar.—eric 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the subject

  1. Do you ever think that we're like these guys backstage (until about 2:07) and then showtime? Damn, I hope so! Now, where's my freakin' wrist band... and,
  2. Does anybody out there know WTF I'm talking about? -hydnjo talk 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me see... Are you asking if we are a group of dysfunctional, bickering, immature guys who, when forced to collaborate together, come up with a long history of exceptional work? I would answer, but I'm feeling particularly dysfunctional and immature at the moment - or maybe I just don't like your sig. That's it. I'm quitting the group and going solo. -- kainaw™ 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and exactly - sometimes (as at 0:55 into it) he says I'm not into it. But guess what, at 0:57 he's definitely "into it" (just kiddin' around I guess)! I dunno, it just came to mind as I read some of the above. Is there an "us" or not? If not then I'm dissapointed, there should be. This is the place for some of us to be at our best and we ought to be supporive of each other (barbs are allowed) and not be undermining for the sake of quibbling about what is or is not homework. It really pisses me off when a homework question is deftly handled and the next guy comes "brilliantly" swooping in with the obvious answer. That should be the subject of removal every bit as much as our "disclaimer" removals. Even more so as it would demonstrate our resolve about this without the "legal" shield. -hydnjo talk 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've had two users get upset with me for giving the old "This is a reference desk, not a discussion forum" response. I feel that should get just as much attention as medical questions. Perhaps we all have our "solo projects." -- kainaw™ 05:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah, screw 'em! You did the right thing and screw their upsetness. I'd rather trust your judgement than that of a first timer bitchy anon. Jeesh Kainaw, a wise old guy once told me that if I was going to train a dog then I've got to be smarter than the dog. -hydnjo talk 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The unsuspecting mob knows little about how lost we sometimes are here, backstage. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, yes I don't think it's wrong to see ourselves as part of of WP's goodwill ambassador corps, and meta-bickering, if necessary, belongs here, on this page. Librarians don't slap each other in front of customers either. Fully agreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! I see what you mean. So, we should do battle responding as we see fit then. But keep on raggin' those folks who are testing the margins perhaps in their own userspace. Problem as I see it though is that first time anons rarely give a shit crap and so who the ...ever knows if we've been helpful or not. -hydnjo talk 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a dilemma. And of course I understand (and to a degree even support) the on-desk interventions mentioned by kainaw.
I guess I can only explain my own philosophy (realizing it is just that, my solo-trip. Hell, as a musician, I've been at enough jams where the other horn players line up nudging or bumping the current soloist away from the mike): I try to choose whatever I expect will give us the least amount of hassle, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
Be terse, and you might get an inflammatory response, resulting in a flamefest. Make a joke at the other person's expense, and, while entertaining the regs, you might also scare away the insulted. Berate the regulars at the desk, and they will respond in kind. We're sensitive, opinionated know-it-alls, but we do share a love for this volunteer service, and, quite frankly, I think we're doing better than we used to.
I see the talk page as a place to exchange our ideas on how to handle and improve things, not as a decision-making assembly dictating how everyone has to handle it. If we listen to what the other has to say, use our good sense and imagination and empathy, we can go pretty far without defining what "consensus" means exactly. I've learned, and have repeatedly adjusted my own behavior based upon good ideas and sensible arguments I read here. We can be a pluralistic "we". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
(All that being rambled, we could be more supportive and respectful of one another, and shouldn't undermine good-faith actions at the desks just because we disagree or don't "get it". Again, the less disruption at the desks themselves, the better). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well someones already got the obligatory spinal tap link in but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU3H1Um4Ju4 Nobody knows who they were, or what they where doing.. seems particularily apt.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Specially around 0:54 when the shifty eyes look like CRD's! -hydnjo talk 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Outdenting because this is a tangential topic... It is often considered rude and disruptive to make "meta-comments" on the desk itself. However, I see a reason to do it at times. For example, I recently posted, on the desk, that two questions were asking for discussion and opinion, not fact or reference. I could have done this on the user's talk page (which I did). I put it on the Reference Desk to inhibit others from being lured into participating in a discussion/opinion thread. This is, to me, a way to avoid deleting the question and limit (hopefully) response to it. It doesn't work perfectly. As we all know, you can tell people "Do Not Answer This Question Or We'll Club A Baby Seal" and you'll still get 10-20 answers. -- kainaw™ 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, certainly. As I said, I even support it. I guess the kind of meta-comments I don't like seeing at the desks are those where volunteers (or regulars, or whatever we call them) get into long and/or heated debates on whether the question is asking for medical advice or homework solutions, whether a certain post was rude or bitey, whether the querent is a troll, and so forth. I also posted a meta-comment yesterday, explaining that we don't give medical advice, and also implicitly asking others not to answer the question, just like your "info-warnings". No problem with that. No problem with the occasional meta-discussion in a lighter tone either. I just don't like it when we start fighting over procedure in front of the audience. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

archive editing task

Would someone like to help out with the RD Archives? There's one task the bot doesn't take care of, and that's adding the monthly links at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. We definitely need July 2008, and it wouldn't hurt to add August and September (or perhaps all the rest of 2008) while we're at it.

Note that the links in question are actually on a transcluded subpage, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions, which is therefore the page that needs editing. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the rest of the year. If that's what you wanted? Fribbler (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not again. . .

The “one true religion” question is back. [8] (I’ve lost count, is this the seventh or eighth time he’s asked it?) Shall we revert it as we’ve done with some previous incarnations of this question? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions I found:
I may have missed a couple. There does seem to be a connection between user:Bowei Huang and user:Brickfield. Still, I think this particular incarnation isn't as diatribulant as some of the others, there is a factual question there, and the querent is specifically not asking for opinions. I wouldn't remove it, personally, but have no strong feelings and won't object if it gets canned. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you Sluzzelin. It was Bowei Huang’s line of questions I was thinking of. Brickfield’s contributions to other parts of the project are quite small. However since there is no proven connection between past incarnations and the current question, I won’t revert it. Still, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that this exact phrase keeps appearing on the desks? Is there some chat room out there that’s doing this for kicks or something? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Well ... we have Brickfield commenting on Bowei Huang's questions ... :S ---Sluzzelin talk 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

On the page for galileo, if you visit it not logged in you get some vandalism on the page. It disappears if you visit the page logged in as a user. WTF is it and how do you remove it?---~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.197.173 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Avril troll --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow I never quite realised how much of his/time the Avril troll was wasting on silly vandalism attempts Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Silly? They got it on thousands of pages and the forums are alight talking about it. I'd say he/she pretty much got her lolz, wouldn't you? Mud Flood (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And that's not silly because...? This is the equivalent of vomiting on yourself in public and gauging the success of that magnificent operation by how many people see it. I mean, sure, it was a successful act of vandalism, but that doesn't make it meaningful. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're a teenager vomiting on yourself in public is a measure of success. Also consider younger people eg http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/12_year_olds_invading_the_internet
hide 87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Not when I was a teenager. I may not have been a typical teenager but most teenagers I know and have know are not/were not that dumb. Sure some may have been infantile in a variety of ways, but most at least had no interest in wasting their time achieving absolutely nothing of substance (sure spending all of you time chatting on IRC may seem dumb the next day, but at least you've achieved something). A lot of teenagers have far fetched but meaningful goals to e.g. become extremely famous in the long term. No one is going to remember the Avril troll in 10 years, nor does it strike me as a story most people would imagine telling anyone in 5 years times. Definitely if I'd consider doing something like this it's not something I'd expect anyone to be interested in hearing about 3 years from now let alone 50. Anyway I'm not so much referring to this single act which appears to have been a relative successful even if dumb act of vandalism but the hundreds of other identities this troll wasted time creating. (I'm sure the troll i.e. MudFlood is pleased with his/her success, but it was still dumb and likely to be something he/she is embarassed of in 10 years time presuming he/she doesn't do something dumb enough to get him/her killed in the mean time) Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stop feeding it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be back..87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
and gone again..87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Date headers

The date header bot seems to be AWOL! I've added July 12 headers to all desks but then became concerned that my "helping" could be screwing things up for when the bot returns. I'm going to hold off adding the July 13 (and subsequent) headers 'till someone can advise. Anyone? -hydnjo talk 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about adding headers manually. As long as you add them in more or less the standard format, the bot absolutely will notice that you have done so the next time it runs, and will not duplicate your work. Thanks.
(As for the bot's being AWOL, real life interfered with my ability to invoke it the past couple of nights, but it should be back tonight.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Steve, I'll not be such a worrier in the future ;-) -hydnjo talk 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed unhelpful, mocking replies

I removed some unhelpful, mocking replies from a question on the Science Desk on translating IBS. Here is the diff [9]. I also removed replies that were only replies to the other removed replies. I hope other people agree this was okay; it's been a while since I've seen something that seemed as clear cut to me, but mileages vary. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, yes, thank you for removing that, though it's probably too late. I thought the first response was a genuine attempt to help, luckily other people spotted it as mockery. It's unfortunate that people use our desks as a place to have fun. Franamax (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, but would like to point out that "having fun" isn't the crime here, it's "making fun" of the OP. There are many ways to have fun that don't mock others, and some are quite helpful, as well (such as the "Bad Boys..." mnemonic to recall the resistor code). And, if having fun (which isn't at the expense of others) makes this a more pleasant place to visit, then the Ref Desk will ultimately be more succesful. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed StuRat, it is nice to have fun here, I didn't word that properly. I do like to have a little fun at the end of the thread, after we've had our shot at serious answers, or via indents. The problem is when the initial response is flippant, that makes fun of the poster rather than the many ramifications of the question. A little above (on the Science RefDesk) is an example of a question about western hemisphere primates - the OP had to try three times before they started getting serious answers. Overall, I think we (well, y'all) do a pretty good job. Franamax (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And through immense effort, I held off on commenting on the guy with three golden balls crossing a bridge 'til the very end. Especially the comment about whether the guy with no balls would try to cross the bridge - of course not, he;s got no balls! :) Franamax (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It is good to have a bit of humour of course, but I agree this should be after you have actually made a serious attempt at answering the actual question. Additionally, humour may sometimes be mis-interpreted and easily taken out of context on the reference desk and so care should be taken (For example, not everyone gets sarcasm and this should be avoided). Jdrewitt (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, sarcasm is so horrible it will ultimate cause the world to end in global thermonuclear war, if allowed to continue. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref Desk vandalism (double image of text and pic of woman with "You've been spammed")

There was vandalism to the Computer, Science, and Misc Desks today which I've now removed. It was apparently included in the following user's signature:

{{User:Rhodopsin drinker/Sig}}

I doubt if it was done with User:Rhodopsin drinker's knowledge. I replaced their signature with a simple namestamp on each of the affected Ref Desks. I will now leave that user a message so they know what's going on. StuRat (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a pic of Avril Lavigne and the text read: "YOU'VE BEEN TROLLED". Obviously this guy isn't going to just give up. Is there anything we can do to stop this kind of thing happening again? Jump gyn (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, User:Rhodopsin drinker was well aware of what was going on, as their block log says they are this troll. Jump gyn (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This was the image they were using: Image:41231 20 122 705lo.JPG Jump gyn (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If 'rhodopsin drinker' was not innocent then this was a sort of 'sleeper' eg sleeper agent - clever..
User:StuRat how did you find it - seems like looking for a needle in a...87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed where the page split in two, edited that question, then removed parts of it and did a Page Preview until the problem went away. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jump gyn is the troll, who lied above about it being User:Rhodopsin drinker. The troll has now been indefinitely blocked: [10]. User:Rhodopsin drinker was blocked from new account creation, so perhaps they are somehow involved, but I'm not sure. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as this clearly shows. Don't be tempted to go there! As long as it's in the history, the link lives on so, some admin should be able to directly or with help, make this problem link disappear, I hope! -hydnjo talk 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

archive?

maybe it's time to archive this page again.?87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about 160kb. I'll cut 60-80 tomorrow if someone doesn't get to it today. -hydnjo talk 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I took about half of the page. Reckon thats enough for now? Fribbler (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you Fribbler, now I can sleep all day tomorrow ;-) -hydnjo talk 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Family crisis...

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Blood_types:_who_is_my_father. It's a simple question which has a simple answer. It isn't asking for legal or medical advice. Therefore, I answered it. I may, however, have caused a major family crisis. Did I do the right thing? --Tango (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

...Except that it isn't a simple question, and it doesn't have a simple answer. In addition to the note provided by Trovatore regarding the Bombay phenotype and your correct note later about possible testing limitations, there are a number of other possible flaws in your analysis. The test can be screwed up, a sloppy lab tech can even swap vials of blood with those of another patient. Chimerism can lead to a parent who doesn't match his or her child's genotype—see the case of Lydia Fairchild.
The person asked the question, "Who is my father?" and provided information that (implicitly) applied to the questioner's situation. You jumped in with both feet and gave an incorrect answer to a sensitive medical question. Don't do that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In what sense is it a medical question? Our guidelines on answering medical questions talk about diagnosis, prognosis and treatment - they has nothing to do with this question. I said it my original answer that there were things that could change the results, I don't see how my answer was incorrect. My question is whether it's right to answer these kind of questions, not whether my answer was correct. --Tango (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The title could have been literal or slighly tongue in cheek - who knows? nobody knows? So don't worry about it - a fuller answer has developed.
87.102.86.73 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course we all need to avoid giving answers based on what we've just read in a wikipedia article -as past experience has shown. Always qualify any potential lack of total expertise, that's what I advise.87.102.86.73 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My answer was based on personal knowledge of basic genetics, I only used the Wikipedia articles to double check and to find suitable articles to link to for further information. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Your answer was based on an incomplete personal knowledge, that may have provided a misleading and traumatic answer. You yourself have already said that your answer may have "caused a major family crisis". Seriously, if you thought that that might be the outcome of your answer, do you really think it was a good idea to provide an answer based on your incomplete knowledge, presumably without benefit of medical training or experience?
The best case scenario here is that you've simply done some kid's homework for him, or possibly that you've fed a troll. The worst case is that your snap off-the-cuff answer has given a child a misplaced doubt about his father. Don't ask us if you've done "the right thing" if you don't want an honest answer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
For a start, this isn't medicine, it's biology. My knowledge of genetics is sufficient to know that, in the absence of unusual circumstances (which I accounted for in my answer), you cannot inherit an allele from a parent that doesn't have it. The doubt is not misplaced, it's far more likely that the AB- person isn't his biological father than that a whole load of unlikely situations have conspired to make it appear that way. Infidelity is very common, the Bombay phenotype is not (and neither are any of the other possibilities suggested). I said in my original answer that it wasn't 100%, but it is far more likely than not. You haven't even tried to answer my question, all you've done is criticise my answer. --Tango (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, criticizing your answer is another way of answering "Did I do the right thing?" The answer is - probably not. Maybe we should extend "don't answer medical questions" to include "or genetic ones". If your logic was based on the premise that "Infidelity is very common", maybe that is logic you don't need to hand out. If you're thinking now about the possible implications, that's an indication that you could have thought the same thing beforehand, and either reworded your reply or removed the question. Think about it Tango - you've already answered your own question. Franamax (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Almost any question that has to do with human interaction can cause a crisis, family-related or otherwise. Someone is trying to access a "lost" computer password and asking about it on the Computers desk? How do we know they're not trying to get into someone else's e-mail? Another guy is asking about gas leaks? How do we know he's not trying to figure out how to make a death look like an accident? There's no way to know. The point is to provide information (hopefully correct information, obviously, but from what I can tell, that's not really the issue in this instance), not protect people from themselves or from imagined threats to the point of stupidity.
With some very few exceptions, all of our answers are based on incomplete information. We can expect most people to lie, if only by omission. And that's fine. As long as we're not telling people how to treat their cancers without help from doctors or how to build bombs out of lawn fertilizer, we can expect them to deal with the information they're given like people with a working sense of personal responsibility. Some people won't be like that, sure, but then some people are stupid, confused, ignorant or indifferent, and have a lot trouble making their way through life. It's insane to work from the supposition that this person might be someone who can't deal with the answer without some kind of reasonable evidence of that. You might as well have supermarkets make a big production out of selling razor blades to people, because, hey, what if they're suicidal and use them to kill themselves? We have incomplete understanding of the subject!
Just about all human interaction carries the risk of misunderstanding, things being taken out of context or an overreaction to the information received. If we get bent out of shape because of that, we might as well pack our bags and shut the whole damn site down; it's no different from someone reading the article about mental illness and drawing ill-advised conclusions about someone they know from it. Or seeing an episode of Oprah or reading a book or overhearing someone say something. We can't protect people from themselves, and we can't second-guess every question. A part of being a human being is dealing with the world. If we accept the premise that someone's life will be ruined because of something they read on the internet and it's our fault, we might as well accept that all of our interaction with other humans is extremely perilous and should only be attempted under the most controlled circumstances and by trained, licensed and monitored experts. Very, very few humans are so fragile as to fall to pieces over crap like this, and we generally don't walk on eggshells throughout our lives for the fear of accidentally bumping into someone in the course of our daily lives. I don't see why we should do so on the Reference Desk. (It seems to me that there are a lot of parallels between situations like this and the endless discussions about why there are articles about pornography on Wikipedia, or why the article about the human penis includes a picture of said organ. Some people get upset, sure. But some people are always going to get upset; it's not Wikipedia's purpose to shield people from the world, but to provide them with a window to it.)
And for the sake of clarity: This is not to say that we shouldn't use common sense and strive to avoid causing trouble if there's reason to believe that a situation is exceptionally volatile -- and by "reason to believe" I emphatically don't mean "can think of a scenario where it might be bad". Giving actual medical or legal advice is verboten, so that's a clear boundary right there. But the idea that we are in a position to constantly evaluate who can be given what information smacks of elitism and seems to be pretty much on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum when compared to the, uh... call it the Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia's purpose. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No particular objection to most of your statements. In the case at hand, a thread titled with "who is my father" must surely give one pause. As far as the Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia's purpose goes - did Plato envision an encyclopedia which went further than imparting comprehemsive knowledge for the reader to contemplate and instead extended to answering specific individual questions? Franamax (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why must it give one pause? It's undoubtedly an important topic for the person asking the question (supposing, if only for the sake of the argument, that the father thing isn't just a joke, or some poorly formed thought experiment, or something else), but -- seriously -- so what? Why should we assume that the person can't take the answer? Isn't it just condescending to assume that we, with our superior knowledge hold power over these poor dumb people who come to us hat in hand, and we judge them worthy of the answer based on whether they can handle it? (I'm exaggerating, perhaps unfairly, but isn't this essentially what you're saying?) And if we do that, why don't we always assume that people can't deal with the things we tell them or what they read, or that the information is going to damage someone? I mean, we just now gave some advice to somebody who was trying to get a theft prevention device off a piece of clothing, based on the claim that the staff at the store forgot to take it off. Other recent topics have included information on high voltage wires in times of flood, the electrical conductivity of fingernails, how much understanding of math and physics a job in computers requires, how to recover admin passwords on Windows XP machines, and how to burn torrent-downloaded images onto DVDs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that any of these could be used for criminal or dangerous purposes or have a considerable impact on someone's life.
As for what Plato envisioned, that's immaterial; the Platonic ideal of something isn't an ideal that Plato envisioned, but an imaginary concept of a "true" or "pure" form of something, a perfect idea that all physical and real-world realizations are merely imperfect reflections of. (Edit: Fixed the the previous sentence; it was kind of, uh, confusing before. Sorry! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)) I am, of course, expressing the thought that the Platonic ideal of an encyclopedia's purpose (rather than the encyclopedia itself) would be an unfettered source of information. This could easily be argued to not be the case, but that would also be completely beside the point, since it's not so much a point of argument as a way of saying that this is what I think an encyclopedia should strive to be -- namely, a source of (ideally correct, dependable and properly contextualized) information that people can read and use to make informed decisions. For all sorts of reasons, a lot of people can't do that, it's true, but that doesn't mean that they should be denied access to that information. They have to be responsible of their own actions; to just assume, without any evidence to the contrary, that they aren't capable of that is, to me, really condescending. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for both your extensive posts 'Capt.'. I've never seen so much sense in my life. Especially the point that if they ask a question why suppose they can't 'take' an answer.
Raising to you Major I think.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I didn't ask before answering is that I generally work on the principle of dealing with situations based on existing policy/consensus and then analysing it afterwards to decide if we ought to change our polices. Perhaps with particularly sensitive issues, it might be good to discuss them first, but my general feeling on the matter was "If you don't want to know, don't ask." I decided to respect the OP's decision to ask the question rather than doubting his/her ability to handle the answer. I think all the people talking so much about all the tiny chances that there is a mistake somewhere need to think long and hard about why they are doing so. The aim of the reference desk is to inform people, not to tell them what they want to hear. Do you genuinely think a mistake is more likely than infidelity (or him simply being adopted, for that matter)? --Tango (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I saw the question and didn't think anything of it. As per above, if they didn't want the answer they shouldn't have asked the question. People come to the reference desk because either they can't find their answer on Wikipedia but its there, or we need to add the content to Wikipedia because people want to know about it. He wanted to know, we found the information and helped him. Wikipedia is not always "family friendly" and as an extension of that policy, I think it is perfectly valid to say, "You asked a question, here's the answer." I have a little trouble coalescing that ideal with not telling someone how to make a bomb out of fertilizer though, because that information is also readily available on Wikipedia (if you know where to look). EagleFalconn (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Upon further reflection, what I meant was mostly that I wouldn't tell someone how to make a bomb simply because anyone who's not clever enough to hunt up the information on his own (and honestly, most libraries can probably help you out there pretty easily) probably shouldn't be jury-rigging one on his own. But that's not a value judgment, really; it's just a situation where the potential for disaster starts to outweigh the principle -- and even then I would take into account my perception of the situation; I can think of many scenarios where I wouldn't think twice about it. I don't think the person supplying information is really responsible -- or morally culpable -- for what another person does with that information unless there's convincing reason to believe that it would have disastrous consequences or a prior obligation to guard the information. Hell, otherwise all librarians would be pretty terrible people. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I don't want to make a moral mountain out of a molehill, but I wonder how to really ethically justify not sharing the information. Your point about mass destruction is a good point, but also as said above how the heck are we supposed to know what someone is going to do with information? Heck, in my organic chemistry class one of the assigned problems was the synthesis of methamphetamine from pseudoephedrine. If I'd come to the desk asking the question, on the one hand you can definitely say "Hey, we're not here to show you how to learn how to make drugs." I don't know that I can justify the position of saying that we will answer absolutely all questions, but neither am I comfortable making judgement calls. The third option would be something similar to the no medical advice policy, but there is no policy I can think of that makes sense in this case. Is there a simple solution to this problem that I'm not seeing? EagleFalconn (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think you were disagreeing with me. I was just thinking out loud, really. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I wouldn't tell someone how to make a fertiliser bomb (other than that I don't personally know without looking it up!) is because I would struggle to think of a legitimate reason for them wanting to know. It could be simple intellectual curiosity (which is basically why you were making methamphetamine - you just wanted to learn how, I imagine you threw it away afterwards), but that's about it. If it's just curiosity, then they ought to find out for themselves, it's more fun that way. If it's anything else, I want nothing to do with it. On the other hand, it's not hard to think of a legitimate reason for wanting to know who your father is. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the OBVIOUS response to that thread is “Luke, I am your father!” --S.dedalus (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense. Darth Vader had blood type completely Midi-chlorian which meant any child of his would definitely be at least partly Midi-chlorian Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your actions in posting the most complete reply you could, Tango. It's definitely not medical advice, it's a basic biology question. I agree that they shouldn't post a Q if they don't want to hear the answer. And don't worry if your answer is incomplete, others will fill in the blank spots later. In short, good job, and just learn to ignore those who claim anything biological is "medical advice" and that nobody other than experts (which they usually define as themselves) is allowed to answer. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to retract most of my criticism in the face of consensus and the valid point of "if you don't want the answer, don't ask the question", but I will leave these points to consdier:
  • Tango, I think that the fact you asked the question means you already have the answer inside you. Listen to your internal voices, they are probably more reliable than us. I suspect the final answer is "maybe".
  • A chem class question is - how to make meth? Beyond homework questions, why would this be turned down? We won't answer that because we won't tell you how to make drugs - because? Presumably because it's illegal in the state of Florida, or California, or wherever the servers are currently locking up from. Or because it's morally wrong and it destroys lives?
  • I wouldn't tell someone how to make a fertiliser bomb - but we explain to people how toasters work, and ammonia explosives are the most commonly used throughout the world. It could be a farmer who needs to clear glacial rubble to get through to his next field, so why not? Because it could be morally wrong and could destroy lives? (Shades of a US city which I will not name)
  • Family crisis - the title of the thread. Could the answer imply any possible moral wrongness? Could the answer destroy lives? Why is this different - because only one life could be destroyed? Well, at least two, but only one innocent life?
Forgive me for the philosophical bent, but if some questions must never be answered and some must be answered come hell or high water, then we must needs draw the line. I impute no wrongdoing to Tango and they brought the question here. I propose that we extend the "medical" stricture to include some "genetic" questions, since the distinction is becoming blurred in the real world. Under my proposed definition, this specific case is not a biological question, it is genetic - and we need a new policy on exactly how to handle it. (I do realize this will be controversial - or maybe just ignored :) Franamax (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm cautious about more formalized instructions creeping our way, and not looking forward to debates on what constitutes genetic advice; debates of potentially similar length and tediousness as the ones we've had on medical advice. I think Franamax nailed it with "I think that the fact you asked the question means you already have the answer inside you. Listen to your internal voices, they are probably more reliable than us." If you're genuinely worried or ambiguous about whether your answer is doing any harm (psychological harm is harm too), then it's better to leave the question alone.
To StuRat: "Learning to ignore" other people's input here, just because they fit one of your own typifications, is not good advice, nor a way forward. Neither Tango nor you are forced to agree with other people's opinions, but listening and reflecting on them is always helpful. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I said "learn to ignore those who claim anything biological is 'medical advice' and that nobody other than experts (which they usually define as themselves) is allowed to answer", and I stand by it. Even if some overzealous individuals out to protect the world from Wikipedia want to define everything biological as medical advice, that doesn't make it so. And, for those who claim that only experts are allowed to respond, that was what Nupedia tried, and it was a miserable failure. That's completely contrary to all the goals of Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what do we need a new policy for, exactly? There's no reason to believe that this particular question caused any harm, for instance. And even if the answer was something that the original poster didn't want to hear and led to something unfortunate -- not that there's any reason to believe that it did, but for the sake of the argument -- how is that fundamentally different from providing the same data in a Wikipedia article? I'm pretty sure that if he were to ask the same question any decent library's reference desk, they would point him to the information, as they should. To suddenly decide that genetics also falls under the umbrella of medical questions -- which, in themselves, are often already approached with a fairly ridiculous degree of zealotry (and which, paradoxically, can usually be easily circumvented by adding the words "hypothetical question" or "not asking for medical advice, just curious") -- is not only silly, but also pretty hypocritical as long as we provide information on demand on a wide variety of other potentially dangerous subjects, many of which have a far greater and more immediate potential for damage.
It's discussions like these that play a part in determining the culture we want to foster -- whether we want to treat people asking questions as people who're responsible for their own lives, or as fragile waifs that can only be given information if we deem them worthy of it. The idea, at its most basic, seems to be that these people need to be protected from themselves, their own curiosity and/or their lack of ability to accurately evaluate the information they are given, and that this protection is currently not wide-ranging enough. If that is really the case, what the hell are we providing them with an encyclopedia for, of all things?
As for why people won't answer various questions, that depends. Just because we may have individual moral qualms, for example, that doesn't mean that they should be a part of a Wikipedia policy. I mean, personally -- and I really mean no offense to anyone here, I'm just illustrating a point -- I think any religious question that gets answered with an answer that implies or directly states that people should follow God's will or do as the Bible says, for example, is completely irresponsible. I think that's terrible advice, and the thought that someone actually follows it when trying to figure out their lives depresses me. It's a hell of a lot more serious, to me, than telling someone how to deal with a mildly sprained ankle, for example. But I wouldn't dream of regulating the answers based on that personal feeling, partly because the person asking the question deserves to evaluate the answers by himself, and partly because any source of information based on ensuring that no one ever gets offended or injured in any way because of that information is worthless; it ceases to be actual information and becomes something akin to propaganda. I don't think people have the right to never get offended or injured, and in the long term -- and even though this goes beyond Wikipedia's scope, I think it's still closely tied to Wikipedia's role as what is certainly one of the world's most widely used sources of information at the moment -- what we do here has an impact the culture we live in. It's not a great impact, but every part counts. If we assume that everyone is vulnerable and fragile and in need of protection from everything, including themselves, and act accordingly, we perpetuate that culture; it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not a big fan of that culture. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well stated, as always, Cap'n. StuRat (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, could you explain what you mean by genetic and medical questions being blurred? I really don't understand where you're coming from. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, well in the case at hand, let's say my father's side of the family is predisposed to colon cancer so I know I need to have a colonoscopy every year - but Wikipedia says he's not my father, so I'll stop getting that test done. The BRCA mutations are a genetic topic - but lead to decisions about preventive mastectomy. The huntingtin gene expansion is a genetic topic - but reliably causes Huntington's. Understanding of the genetic pathways to disease has increased greatly, even in just the lifespan of Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. But certainly the guy could've gotten the same information just from reading the appropriate Wikipedia article instead of asking the question, or from any library, if he'd bothered to do so. So if we're assuming responsibility here, why aren't we assuming responsibility for that as well? I mean, absolutely, I agree that there's a good chance that people are going to make stupid decisions based on the information they obtain, either because they're ignorant about the implications of what they read, because they make incorrect assumptions, because they misunderstand the information, because the answer is bad, or any number of other comparable situations. Sometimes this will undoubtedly lead to unfortunate situations.
But that's life for you. I mean, seriously, these things happen. If someone asks you for directions, and you either give them wrong or the person asking the question misunderstands what you tell him, and the guy ends up wandering off course and gets mugged or hit by a car, you are directly responsible for that -- technically. If you hadn't said what you did, it wouldn't have happened! But that way lies madness. Actions always have consequences, and the inevitable ripple effect of cause and effect pretty much guarantees that some of them are unfortunate. All we can do is do our best to be honest and accurate. It's the responsibility of everyone to properly comprehend and evaluate the information they receive, whether it's from the Ref Desk, the rest of Wikipedia, the television, or from their own senses. That's a basic human responsibility we all have, and we cannot and must not place it on someone else's shoulders.
Also, as long as we're giving people answers and advice -- and I'm picking these from current questions on the Ref Desk -- on things like harmful bacteria, construction, electronic interference on airplanes, and whether hydrogen peroxide can reduce a man to "unidentifiable chunks" (and that's just on the Science desk), it strikes me as hypocritical to decide that these answers are particularly bad to give. I can come up with a dozen scenarios where these could all be harmful to someone, and in most cases those scenarios are based on the assumption that the person reading the answers provided -- whether the original poster or someone else -- is going to do something stupid or evil based on that information. I mean, what the hell? The colonoscopy situation might endanger someone's life so we shouldn't touch the question, but telling a guy how to balance a 182 kg concrete slab on three pillars is okay? (And I realize that this is not what you literally said, but you see my point.) And I'm not accusing you of being a hypocrite personally, I understand the concern. But how about a little consistency? If we accept that doing the first thing is bad, then it logically follows that the other thing must be bad as well. Hell, I think the chances of someone doing something stupid and getting hurt are a lot worse with the concrete slab thing than with the completely hypothetical predisposition to an illness. I'm absolutely certain that there are many, many people who have made their lives worse -- perhaps drastically so -- based on what they've read on Wikipedia, or their understanding of it. Why aren't we shouldering that responsibility as well? I mean, we write it and we publish it, don't we?
(And I should probably stress that I don't think we should play doctors and diagnose actual medical conditions. I think it's a good idea to have people visit medical professionals when they suspect that they might have something wrong with them. But there's a world of difference between diagnosing someone and providing them with information they could easily look up themselves.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I may just be repeating the Captain here, but the fact that answering a genetic question can indirectly cause a medical issue is irrelevant. If I tried hard enough, I could probably come up with a way that any answer given on these desks in the last year could cause someone's death. We do not give direct medical or legal advice. If we try and expand that, we might as well shut the desks down (which would be the end of an amazing resource). --Tango (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c - here's my little rant anyway, I may have matched CD for length but perhaps not for coherence :)
The overriding principle is "will my answer cause harm?" and "could my answer be wrong?". The concrete slab guy was warned a few times about the potential danger and in fact modified the design - in a safe direction. (They must have repoured the concrete base, and they still need to pin the table with a little L-bracket, but whatever) No problem arose there - but if the first response had been "nahh, it won't tip" and they read that and headed out to the back yard - big problem. Some people come here expecting an authoritative answer which, be honest, we're not in a position to supply. I can analyze forces all day on a concrete slab, but if the OP omits that it's on a ten-degree slope, my analysis is incorrect for the practical purpose. People come here anticipating authoritative answers - but we're a bunch of voices ranging from expert to humourous troll. I was called out for a sarcastic reply on the lines of "yes, the earth is flat, tell your prof you read it on Wikipedia" - and rightly so. I also responded to a question about three-phase fractionation, where in some (remote and obscure, mechanical only, in the past) respects I could be considered a world-class authority - but I responded to the question in a proper engineering context with "tell me more about the question".
We all want to help, but that is where the potential problems arise. How often do you see a RefSci first response that is just plain wrong? It's not often, but it's not zero either. Now when we talk about atomic orbitals, the thread gets corrected over time; and when we talk about H2O2 decomposing a human, there's little risk that someone will decide to walk into the spray on the say-so of Wikipedia. (And BTW, hydrogen peroxide starts out pure before it's diluted, I designed the internals of a H2O2 reactor, it is highly oxidizing and there was an insurance company rep at every meeting we had) (Oh, and they disinfect spacecraft that go to Mars, so bacteria can survive at least that long :)
My point here is that we need to err on the side of safety - so don't tell someone there's no problem with dirty dishcloths. Many posts don't explain the full nuance of health issues, and don't delve into the various dangers involved. These may or may not get covered later in the thread. I was shot down not long ago when I suggested that it's a seriously bad idea to stare at the Sun, magnesium flares and welding arcs. I didn't properly source my statement, but you know what? - it's still a seriously bad idea. Bad advice goes only one way - toward bad results. In some cases, sitting back and saying "I'm not responsible for how you interpreted and acted on my response, I just posted my opinion" just doesn't cut it. If the first response to slab-guy was "It's fine" that's not going to help his crushed pelvis. There is nothing at the top of the RefSci page that says "Warning: The answers here could be completely wrong". That's why I try to always stick in the safety warnings where I can - opposition be damned, I've made my warning, extreme as it may be - the reader can work backwards from "this could be dangerous".
In the case at hand, and not to beat on Tango at all, honest: OP asks about bloodtypes, Tango responds with the admitted preconception that infidelity is the most likely explanation (but does not explicitly state that); subsequent posters point to other explanations with probability greater than zero. It is absolutely not our job to assess probabilities, and in this case I would argue that it is not our job to point to any conclusion that most likely your mom was screwing around. The issue here is that Tango made a statement based on his knowledge, it didn't claim to be the definitive truth but to the outside maive reader could have looked that way, we're the experts remember? Only afterwards did dissenting opinions appear. And that's fine for us who enjoy watching RefDesk threads unfold over days, but it doesn't help the guy who read the first post and ran off to confront his Mom. (Sorry Tango to beat on the horse, it's just a convenient dead body) The point here is that we all must consider the fact that our answers are wrong, or are answering a question the OP didn't ask - and we must consider the impact of our erroneous responses. If it's a true RefSci question involving theory, no problem; if it's a practical question like mounting a concrete slab, blood-types indicating parentage, or any number of real-world consequences, then much more care is needed. Most of the regulars have that down, drive-by comments are occasionally a problem - in any case I don't agree with the simple statement that it's not my problem what you do with the answer. It's more complicated, and we all have some personal responsibility here. </rant> Franamax (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, what you say makes sense. You have missed one very important principle that we have to factor into our decisions - "Will my answer help the OP?". If we only took your questions into account we would never answer any questions. It's all a matter of balance, we have to balance the risk of giving a wrong or harmful answer against the benefit of giving a correct and helpful answer. Where we draw the line is a very subjective matter and I think it's best if we each make the decision for ourselves, which is what I did in this case. Having discussions like this, however, helps us to make more informed decisions, and I'm really glad I asked for opinions here, this has been a great discussion. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's absolutely a subjective matter! You get a bad vibe off a question, chances are that you're not going to answer it (or you'll ask for more information to determine whether you should). That's not only common sense, but a way to shoulder your share of the responsibility. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

I reverted this unhelpful and rather insensitive reply. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have reverted, because it's about a fish, after all. However, I suppose there are some people who get all emotional about their pet fish. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much just felt that when I was a young kid (as seemed possible here) having the troubles of my pet fish made fun of could hurt a lot more than as an adult. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I [don't just] suppose that there are some people who get all anxious about illness, responsibility, unpredictable or unanticipated outcomes, feeling out of their depth, etc. and post queries on the Ref Desks (notably Miscellaneous, Humanities, Science) in hopes of getting some human (albeit virtual) interaction and attention to their situation. Shall we respond with basic compassion here, please? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Good revert. People don't come to the reference desk to have their troubles made fun of. We shouldn't do it, and we should remove mockery when people are impolite enough to add it. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Good revert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

apologies for missing archive pages

Three archive pages are currently missing: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 8, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 9, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 July 11. The reason is that those days all contain links to imageshack.us, which has evidently been placed on the wikipedia spam blacklist in the meantime.

Since they're missing, there are bunches of redlinks on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/July 2008, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/July 2008, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/July 2008. More seriously, those days are not currently transcluded on their respective current desks, as they normally would be.

This is a real nuisance, as there's currently no good way for the archiving bot to deal with this situation. (I suppose I should just complete those days by hand, eliding the troublesome links.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to fix those three tonight, only to discover that EricR had beaten me to it! Thanks! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nasty? or just curt?

See Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science#Can someone help me in my own noble pursuit of all the world's (scientific) knowledge?

Is it just me (yes I know that the question may not be totally serious) but are the answers to this question bordering on the plain nasty, and not just rude.

Also though I understand that some questioners can be a pain I've been finding 'user:kainaw' s replies (in certain cases) to be becoming increasingly inpolite eg

[11] : curt but not inpolite
[12]] curt and inpolite

These are two examples out of hundreds of good and useful responses. Nevertheless can I request that:

a. If your response cannot be polite do not respond - leave it to someone else.
b. Please bear in mind that not everyone has the same level of education, or indeed age related wisdom etc etc. and that some apparently 'odd' questions will/may be entirely in good faith.

(Apologies to User:Kainaw for making them the example.)

Can we have a bit more 'good faith' and 'be polite' please.87.102.86.73 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I independently noticed that User:Kainaw was getting a bit rude and mentioned it on his talk page. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, I'm happy to see the alligator has been put to use. :-) Maybe kainaw sometimes semimorphs into his favored object of study and gets a bit prickly in the process. I knew an entomologist who resembled a beetle; he was aptly and predictably nicknamed Gregor Samsa. From now on, I will call kainaw Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle if I feel it is time to retract the spines. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering how three people hit my talk page at once. I know I'm not remotely near popular enough to warrant that much traffic...
I have no issues with being told that I'm being "prickly." In fact, I brought it up myself. My tolerance for the general public has waned over the last few months. I'm finishing up my PhD and will soon be a nasty curmudgeon of a professor. I promise to stop responding before I'm prickly all the time. -- kainaw™ 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who considers this thread a little ironic. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of good faith on the reference desk but surely if you are going to start listing rules, then at least ensure you abide by them yourself. For (1) there is an earlier thread on this discussion page which illustrates what I'm on about and (2) asking for politeness and then writing a profanity on the reference desk page itself for all to see is in my opinion a little rude. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only one, I too agree. I see the irony, I was aware of the irony when typing it it, it's ironic.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well as long as you are aware. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but even going to those two links (in the original post) I couldn't see anything sharp or rude about them. To me they seem to state the way things are without padding. Maybe I read them in a laid-back way, I don't know... Julia Rossi (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought they were funny, but also rude.87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, nothing can be funny without being rude. The basis of adult humor is unexpected rudeness towards something or someone. It can be simple "His name is funny sounding (rudeness)" or as extreme as "He looked funny as he flew through the windshield of his car after hitting that tree (rudeness)". In other words, everything offends someone - but it doesn't necessarily mean it is offensive. Raise hands... Who was offended by this comment? -- kainaw™ 12:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
<humorless-dissection-of-humor-warning> If you adhere to the "superiority theory", then rudeness might in fact be a prerequisite for humor. For example, a comment on an querent's spelling skills might make us laugh and feel intellectually superior (when he's clueless) and even morally superior (when he's an arrogant prick). One step away from Schadenfreude.
If, however, you view humor more generally as a result of perceived incongruity, then it needn't require rudeness, though rudeness can be incongruous to our sense of etiquette and taboos, and thus funny, of course.
I won't raise my hand, wasn't offended by any of kainaw's comments, and, admittedly, rudeness rarely bothers me when it makes me laugh. I just don't think humor is conditional to rudeness. Self-deprecating humor is rarely rude, e.g. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I see your signature now, I think of this ->
kainaw smiting the ignorant (and goats!)
God bless.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened here - oversight?

Resolved
 – Remaining edits oversighted.

This edit shows a personal attack being removed [13] yet the previous edit seems to show another user adding the attack, then adding a comment to the attack?? [14]

Has an intermediate edit been deleted - because of the attack eg oversight? if so it was innefective since it still shows up in the edit history?

Does anyone know what has happened here?87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like something did get oversighted or something. When I reviewed those edits shortly after they were made, they were definitely three -- a longish, abusive diatribe by User:Lewis and his Four Degrees, a random followup by User:Tagishsimon, and a reversion of both by User:Bibliomaniac15. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If that was oversight, which it certainly looks like, someone screwed up: at least the following edit by Tagishsimon, and possibly also Bibliomaniac15's revert, should have been oversighted as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that was it. I sent a note to oversight-l and it's been fixed now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh you beat me to it, I've just left a message on the help desk, I suppose I'll have to go back and remove it. At least I know that User:Tagishsimon isn't suffering from some bizarre multiple-username-disorder! Thanks for clearing that up.87.102.86.73 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification after looking through the edit summary I suspect the edits were oversighted because they involved the disclosure of alleged personal information about an editor. Personal attacks are bad and often should be deleted on sight but in themselves don't generally require oversight unless there is something potentially libellious or a disclosure of private information. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm relieved to hear my BMUD has cleared up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical Advice Randomly Given

Ooookay. Is it generally agreed that offering random medical advice is a bad thing? [15] I'd say especially when it is ill-informed and dangerous, but we probably don't want to be adding extra contentious lines to cross. Anyway, I'd kind of hoped that Sandman would have seen my request shortly after I made it and removed the advice from the reply, then I could remove my comment and all would be well. But now there's a reply to my request which includes more, different, medical advice. Rather than wait around for specific people to notice and retract their own comments, can we excise Sandman's reply, my reply to that and the reply to my reply? 79.66.124.253 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Clear-cut case of medical advice, potentially harmful to the OP. Algebraist 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Advising somebody to ignore professional medical advice is a bad idea - removing it was the right call. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Algebraist for removing it. Having made the reply to Sandman requesting the removal, I didn't feel able to do a removal myself. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on Sandman's talk page. (Remember, plenty of people here never read this talk page or any of our guidelines. Educating them is half the journey). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting issue

All the text, together with the headings, is indented starting with July 23 heading. Can anyone fix this, since I can't see where the problematic code is. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, after a fashion. Looks like it was HTML table markup causing the issue, though the code looked valid enough. I've removed it at the cost of the PRE text now being left justified more than the surrounding commentary. I'm sure we can all live with this.
BTW, this is a talk page for all seven RDs, and so it is useful to specify which one of them has the problem; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive box

The archive box at the top of this page is huge. How about this one? I stole it from User talk:Rockpocket :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks more compact all right. Sure, try it on for size! Fribbler (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Archive
Archives (dates are close, not exact)
2004

(1) Jan 1-Sep 15 '04
(2) Feb 1-Nov 13 '04

2005

(3) Mar 20-Aug 17 '05
(4) Aug 19-Aug 30 '05
(5) Sep 4-Sep 18 '05
(6) Sep 25-Dec 3 '05

2006

(7) Dec 10-Jan 9 '06
(8) Jan 9-Jan 19 '06
(9) Jan 19-Mar 27 '06
(10) Apr 2-Aug 2 '06
(11) Aug 9-Sep 20 '06
(12) Sep 21-Oct 22 '06
(13) Oct 21-Nov 1 '06
(14) Nov 1-Nov 11 '06
(15) Nov 9-Dec 4 '06
(16) Dec 5-Dec 11 '06
(17) Dec 11-Dec 13 '06
(18) Dec 13-Dec 16 '06
(19) Dec 15-Dec 19 '06
(20) Dec 19-Dec 31 '06

2007

(21) Jan 01-Jan 09 '07
(22) Jan 09-Jan 18 '07
(23) Jan 18-Jan 31 '07
(24) Jan 31-Feb 13 '07
(25) Feb 13-Feb 28 '07
(26) Mar 01-Mar 13 '07
(27) Mar 13-Mar 31 '07
(28) Apr 01-Apr 10 '07
(29) Apr 10-Apr 21 '07
(30) Apr 21-Apr 29 '07
(31) Apr 30-May 8 '07
(32) May 8-May 14 '07
(33) May 14-May 26 '07
(34) May 27-June 20 '07
(35) June 21-Aug 24 '07
(36) Aug 1-Aug 31 '07
(37) Aug 31-Sep 29 '07
(38) Sep 29-Nov 4 '07
(39) Nov 6-Dec 7 '07
(40) Dec 8-Dec 23 '07
(41) Dec 26-Dec 31 '07

2008

(42) Jan 1-Jan 31 '08
(43) Feb 1-Mar 16 '08
(44) Mar 17-Mar 31 '08
(45) Apr 1-Apr 15 '08
(46) Apr 16-Apr 30 '08
(47) May 1-May 22 '08
(48) May 23-Jun 17 '08
(49) Jun 18-Jun 25 '08
(50) Jun 26-M d '08
(51) M d-M d '08
(52) M d-M d '08

Implemented (with a couple of changes). Feel free to revert if there's a problem I missed. Algebraist 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the 2007-2008 date <smalls>, they're hurtin' my old eyes ;-) hydnjo talk 23:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

July 20 RDS

The archive for July 20th of the Science desk seems to have gone missing somehow. Another banned site link problem? Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that too, was it deleted? If not, why not go back in history, and copypaste it onto the archive? Did MiszaBot not create /July 20? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I just got back from a week on the road with poor internet connectivity, during which several of scsbot's runs were incomplete. (The Language desk is having problems, too.) I'll try to get everything fixed up tonight. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

references with require payments/academic access

This might not be the best place to post this question, so feel free to move it to the relevant page.

I've been working with several articles that require journal refs and some of these journals are not free (therefore not many can access them for double-checking or for more detailed info). On the other hand, there are several websites that give the same info, but they are perhaps "dubious". Is there a way to have {{citation}} and {{cite}} and the general quidelines on refs to show the academic ref, but also have the opportunity to link to a free site without misusing the url function for the free website isntead of the pay-one? Nergaal (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understood but could you just use two links?
Also definately use the reference desks (either misc, or the page most related to your subject area) in future. I believe the wikipedia help desk may also be a better place to ask.
Help:Contents or Wikipedia:Help desk?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It depends firstly what you mean by "dubious". If these sites are likely to be violating copyright, then it would be forbidden to link to them (see WP:COPYVIO). However if you're simply thinking about linking to the authors sites which mirrors the article (which they are often entitled to do, in any case it's resonable for us to presume they are in the absence of evidence to the contrary) then this issue won't arise. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If possible please give an example of a dubious site - I guess you mean 'amateur'?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I would just put the DOI in, not link a URL unless the author/publisher has explicitly given permission for free access from that site. If somebody wants to read the article and they don't have academic access then they should contact their local library. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this properly Misc, or Hum (or Entertainment)?

Advice (post-facto), please: was I on target in posting this query on the Miscellaneous RD, at least the part about card games, or might it get a better reading and response at the Humanities RD because it's a historico-cultural matter, not about entertainment and pastimes in the contempo sense? -- Thanks for your feedback, Deborahjay (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? It's a question about indentifying a card game - why not the entertainment desk?87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Answer: I evidently failed to consider that "Entertainment" would include recreation, i.e. such active pastimes as sports and games. Have renamed the query accordingly; thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you were waivering I have added a note on the ent. desk. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Please_help_identify_this_card_game.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
87.102, I think it is a clever approach to advertise for a question on its (possibly) more appropriate desk. This way the original poster, and people who have already responded, will be able to find the thread where they left it, yet it also attracts more experts. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an article!

Question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#context_sensitive gave birth to an article: Context sensitive user interface after many hours of labour...

I've no idea if Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration is still alive but if it is please add this to your lists...87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Scary eyes" medical question

I just removed this question and an associated answer from the Miscellaneous desk:

'nb:this is not a medical question!!!'
During a Dilated fundus examination the eye doctor puts drops into a persons eyes to dilate them (for a better look). If person X wanted to achieve dilated eyes, where could they buy these drops and, from a non-medical point of view, what would be the long term helth effects on a hypothetical person who did this. ZigZap (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I had an some eye problems a few years ago. On my first visit to the eye specialist I got some eye dilatation drops which I was asked to put in my eyes an hour before my next appointment. The plastic bottle the drops came from contained way more than I needed. So try going to a specialist for such a bottle. Hope this helps a bit. (By the way, you can't have my bottle, sorry, it has been open for years and I am not taking any risks with your health.) 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Martin.

The OP can say "this is not a medical question" all he or she likes; I think the "what would be the long term helth [sic] effects" puts it squarely in medical advice territory. And, a check of the OP's contribution history, especially this diff, note the hidden text, also suggests the whole thing is trolling. - EronTalk 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Same troll is on humanities desk, should be deleted? (Sorry, didn't sign)--64.228.89.144 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes - nuke the whole section from orbit, it's the only way to be sure - but in the past, other editors have objected to their good faith answers becoming collateral damage. Maybe some consensus can be reached, but for now I'm avoiding the drastic action and also the fairly easily identifiable troll contributions. --LarryMac | Talk 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly just an idiot.. see Peter Principle "In a Online Encyclopedia Reference Desk Every Questionee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence..." I know I do.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
ie every questioner eventually reaches a point at which they are no longer capable of clearly expressing their question - they never get past that point - because - nobody understands what they are saying...87.102.86.73 (talk)
I reported that account and another for checkuser and it's now blocked with a few others. For the record, I think that those threads should be deleted entirely. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete them..(agree)
So much for good faith - next time I'll use my sense of smell...87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be paranoid and assuming bad faith, but I noticed something: in WP:RD/C#cuil the OP seems to be advertising a porn site (culi.com) based on a grammatical mistake. According to Alexa, cuil.com, the search engine, has recently become popular, while culi.com firmly stands at zero. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably the user just having a 'dumb' or 'senior moment'.. their edit history doesn't seem bad (I took a few random samples)
Perhaps they meant that people typing 'cuil' in would have a small chance of typing 'culi' by accident and being directed to a pron site - in that sense it is unfortunate.
Personally I'm grateful for the advert for cuil.com - I'm just about to go and have a look...
Not the greatest question ever though - I agree.87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems I was assuming bad faith. My apologies. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't blame you - I'd like to see a good question for a change, that would certainly help moral..87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've retired this particular discussion page: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice

There haven't been any edits to this page in months and it appears to be inactive. I've therefore removed it from the WT:RD talk header.--VectorPotential Talk 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tooth question

I've added this header, since it's purely opinion that the following tooth question was asking for advice, and headers are supposed to be neutral. There are also links to this header. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tooth advice

I've removed a question asking for advice about the growth of new teeth during the OP's wife's pregnancy. We are not doctors or dentists, and it is beyond the scope of this Desk's mandate to confirm the OP's diagnosis (that it is a new tooth, and not something else) or describe how the new growth might or might not be related to his wife's pregnancy.

Diff of my removal is here: [16]. I left Kainaw's comment in place because it explained in reasonable detail why we couldn't answer the question posed.

I posted this here, since I expect that there may be questions about my removal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that I would have left the original post in place as well, but it seemed to pose an attractive nuisance. An editor has already reverted me without discussion (despite my comments here and on his talk page) and under the mistaken impression that he has some sort of consensus on his side. I have undone his revert, as both Kainaw and I have presented reasonable explanations as to why this request for medical advice can't be answered here.

An apparent eruption of a new tooth can signify a number of potentially serious conditions, and a concerned individual should seek the advice of a medical professional—not be glibly assured by the Ref Desk's armchair doctors that it's just a harmless wisdom tooth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There most certainly are some objections:
1) You failed to gather consensus that it was a medical question before the removal. In fact, the consensus appeared to be that it wasn't, based on the responses.
2) You selectively removed a response that argued it wasn't a medical question (mine), while leaving a response that argued that it was (Kainaw's). You can't do this type of partial removal to make it look like everyone agrees with you.
I've restored the question and answers based on these inappropriate actions of yours. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking more carefully I note that at least three editors acknowledged that the question was seeking a diagnosis or prognosis—Kainaw and Keenan Pepper both noted the problem in their comments in response, and I removed the question, making a third.
I left Kainaw's response because it explained the policy in more specific detail than the template. My actions weren't part of a conspiracy to misrepresent a consensus, they were an application of policy. If you prefer, you can remove Kainaw's response and leave just the template, but I thought it likely that Kainaow's response would be useful to the OP.
If I were trying to pull a fast one here, StuRat, I wouldn't have notified both you and the readers of this talk page immediately after my edit. Existing policy doesn't require an advance discussion to form a consensus that a question seeks medical advice before it is removed. While I've tried to be reasonably laid-back about these sorts of things, when people start offering diagnoses ("coincidental natural eruption of a wisdom tooth") and prognoses (normal part of human growth") to pregnant women, I get a bit more proactive.
The most inappropriate thing about my action here was that I left Kainaw's response, which did hint at ways to rephrase the question to get around our guidelines and implied possible alternate causes for the symptoms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that Keenan Pepper necessarily agrees that it's a medical diagnosis, he just wanted to avoid the issue: "(Not answering because of diagnosis issue, just asking for clarification.)". Meanwhile, there seemed to be me, the original poster, and 4 others who answered, for 6 total who think the question is valid for the Ref Desk. So, 2 versus 6 seems like the consensus is clearly to keep it, at least until more people chime in. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for the advice of neutral admins at AN/I, since there seems to be a preference for edit warring over discussion. I have presented my points, and welcome additional input. I have also asked Keenan Pepper and Kainaw to comment directly, rather than continuing this second-guessing of their thoughts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bypassing the consensus-building process here and instead trying to move this to an Admin issue ? I will abide by the consensus, why won't you ? StuRat (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Kainaw's thoughts are quite obvious. You therefore seem to be asking him here to bias this discussion in the favor of those who want to call it medical advice. To rebalance the discussion, I must now invite the rest. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, with any disputed removal you should have provided a link at the question to the disussion here, which I have now added. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that I made myself clear. The questioner's diagnosis is that the growth in his wife's mouth is a new tooth. There is no proof of this diagnosis. He then asks if his diagnosis is supported by the pregnancy. In my opinion, this is no different than saying, "My wife has a lump in her breast. I think it is a new brain. Could drinking a lot of iced tea cause her to grow a new brain in her breast?" The only difference is that without seeing tons of medical journal articles about squamous cell carcinoma being mistaken for tooth growth, it would appear that the diagnosis of "new tooth" is harmless. Unfortunately, it is not harmless and in fact more life-threatening than breast cancer. -- kainaw™ 05:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You really are going out of your way to see this as a serious medical condition when it's just a tooth. If someone posts a pic of a butterfly that landed on their arm and asks us to identify it, I would expect you to say "Stop, that could be a cancer that looks like a butterfly, so we must remove this question for your own protection !". StuRat (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Shoo! Better to remove the butterfly... Julia Rossi (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I endorse ToaT's removal. Questions incorporating "my wife is pregnant" cross the line into medical territory. I'd suspect a wisdom tooth, but there's no need for us to attempt diagnoses when the simple answer is "ask your doctor". If the question was "last time my wife was pregnant", maybe a different story, but as it was posed - we are not a resource for pregnancy questions (nor dental questions, nor any other health issue). Franamax (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Would it have been acceptable if the question had read "Can pregnancy hormones result in the growth of a new tooth?"? If so, can we answer that question and use a template asking other responders not to give medical advice?

In this case, the question could be interpreted as a request for medical advice and, according to the guidelines, should be removed. But the OP clearly asked "could this be related to the pregnancy or just coincidence? so it could also be interpreted as the above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider this question to be analogous to "I've had a cold for the past three days; could growing older cause a person to have more colds?" It's true that the symptoms reminiscient of a cold--fever, stuffy nose, and fatigue--are indicative of many diseases, some of which are much deadlier than cancer. However, since the probability of having these other diseases is small, most accept claims of having the cold to be true.
According to mandibular third molar, "they [wisdom teeth] usually appear between the ages of 16 and 25", and "usually" does not imply a 1% or 2% probability. Doubting the OP's claim that his wife grew a new tooth is similar to doubting a self-diagnosis of the common cold; it strikes me as taking caution to excessive extremes, since the appearance of wisdom teeth during adulthood is not uncommon. Just as a discussion on the common cold would be appropriate for the reference desk, I deem discussions on other ordinary aspects of a person's life to be acceptable too.
Furthermore, as Zain noted, the OP did not ask for verification of his "diagnosis". He explicitly asked whether pregnancy could be the cause of the tooth development. That is not a request for diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment options. To the contrary, it requests only scientific information.
Kainaw: regarding your example question about the breast lump, if regular human development involves growing lumps and brains in the breasts, I would consider your question to be appropriate for the reference desk. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As the guy who asked the question in the first place I would just like to say I was in no way seeking any medical advice. She's says she not grew a new tooth since she was a kid then suddenly she's growing one when she's pregnant. That's it. We just thought it was weird and wondered if there was a connection.

If we want medical advice (which we don't) we will go to a doctor.

We just thought it was a weird thing thats all. Sorry I posted the question now. Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't ask us to confirm that it was a tooth. If I start a question by stating that I have asthma I am not asking you to confirm my diagnosis of asthma. He stated that his wife was growing a tooth and we were willing to accept it. If anything, I think that those questioning whether it was a tooth and speculating that it might be a cancerous growth are the ones overstepping their mandate by venturing into the realm of diagnostic medicine. Those of us accepting his word and linking him to Wisdom Teeth are talking about very common and well-establish human anatomy. Those getting all worked up about an alleged tooth are the ones conducting medical speculation. Plasticup T/C 11:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
However, you are speculating that it is a wisdom tooth. You are speculating that his wife is under the age of 40 (since many women are getting pregnant around 40 now). He did not state it was a wisdom tooth. It could have been any tooth. She could be any age. By trying hard to assume that she is young and this is a molar, you make it easy to come to the conclusion that you want. By not assuming her age or the type of tooth, the question remains open-ended and it could be a common molar or it could be one of many other things. I did not assume it was cancerous. I assumed nothing and was left with a variety of possibilities - one of which is cancer. -- kainaw™ 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I am speculating that he will be interested in our article on widsom teeth. I will leave it up to him whether or not his wife's incoming "tooth" is a wisdom tooth. I don't dare make assumptions about his wife's age, her biological clock, the proliferation of fertility drugs, the possibility of cancer, or anything like that. You are getting into the realm of medical advice when you start this sort of speculation. Plasticup T/C 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We didn't assume it was a tooth, that's what the OP stated. You're the one who thinks the OP can't tell a tooth from a cancerous growth, which is quite absurd. Do you have any refs for any case where this has ever happened ? StuRat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought that I made it clear that my opinion was formed after perusing PubMed and finding that "I have a new tooth" in adults (over 25) is the start of many different medical problems - none of which lead to actually having a new tooth. Do you have access to PubMed to read the articles? Without assuming that she is under 25 and assuming that it is a wisdom tooth, how can you possibly argue that the questioner made it clear he is talking about a wisdom tooth in a young woman? -- kainaw™ 13:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
He made it clear he was talking about a tooth, not a cancer growth. And no, I don't have access to any sources which require a subscription. Of course having a new tooth can cause medical problems, like an impacted molar, but that has nothing to do with this question. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This a long discussion - have you got a diagnosis yet? - my conclusion - the question is seeking medical advice, if it wasn't what is the purpose of the above discussion?

See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would having a long discussion about something mean that it's medical advice ? It only means that one or more person thinks it is, and, in this case, the consensus appears to be that it isn't (which seems to include Pasticup, Iiidonkeyiii (the OP), Bowlhover, Zain Ebrahim111, myself, and the others who responded to the question). StuRat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
They were definately seeking advice, and in a medical/dentistry area. It's improtant to note in this context that the question was not hypothetical, or theoretical, but had a human subject.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Which part of the question sought advice? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The bit that asked - try to work it out for yourself, and don't waste my time with semantics ok.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1. My wife is pregnant.
2. She discovered a new tooth.
Q. Could the new tooth be related to the pregnancy?
Please take the time to explain where the request for medical advice is. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree that there is no explicit request for medical advice here, it is simply a scientific question about whether pregnancy leads to extra teeth, it is not asking for treatment. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not asking for treatment. It is not asking for diagnoses, progonses or anything except information. The providers of these should be chastised, not the OP. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The OP is reporting a physical symptom - the growth of a new tooth or something which appears to be a new tooth - in a real person and asking what could have caused it. It was not a hypothetical question. I cannot imagine that we would be having this discussion if the question had been "My wife is pregnant and she has discovered a lump in her breast. Could the lump be related to the pregnancy?" Any responsible editor would have said "We have no idea. Get to a doctor now if you are worried about it." I don't understand how this question is any different. There is a new and unexplained growth which is out of the ordinary enough that the OP has to ask about it. How is that not a request for medical advice? - EronTalk 14:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You have repeated the exact same argument which appeared above. Please read the excellent response offered there by Bowlhover: "Kainaw: regarding your example question about the breast lump, if regular human development involves growing lumps and brains in the breasts, I would consider your question to be appropriate for the reference desk.". In other words, a breast lump is a symptom of disease, whereas tooth growth is a normal part of human growth. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
A breast lump is a sign of a disease if you assume the woman is over 18. Is she is an early teenager, it is a normal part of human growth as the breast enlarge during maturity. A new tooth is a normal part of human growth is you assume the person is under 25. Without that assumption, it is not normal and a sign of something abnormal. -- kainaw™ 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not really the age that is the factor here, but whether the lump is "on" the breast or "is" the breast. Without stating otherwise, a "breast lump" refers to a lump on an existing breast, and is thus a symptom of disease, regardless of age. A tooth is not a symptom of disease unless there is some other factor (like it coming in improperly) to indicate a problem. We must assume good faith and beleive that it's a tooth, as the OP stated, unless we have good reason to suspect otherwise. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
(my two cents after multiple edit conflict)Zain, the very first sentence in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice goes The Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis. (my emphasis) Speculating on whether the appearance of a specific tooth in a specific real life person's mouth could be related to that person's real life pregnancy, is speculating on diagnosis of a medical condition, or differential diagnosis if you prefer. A diagnosis has a more or less particular range of outlook and treatment (the outlook can also be "stable" and the treatment advice can be "don't do anything"). The advisory part is implicit.
Look, I don't feel that strongly about any guidelines, but now the discussion really is descending into a debate on semantics. Please argue whether it's in the spirit of the guidelines, not whether it breaks the letter. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines exist to protect OPs from potentially harmful responses from "misguided souls". So we delete questions to protect OPs. We delete requests for treatment, diagnoses, prognoses or anything that a medical professional should handle. This is a request for biologial information related to pregnancy. If the OP used the word "Is" instead of "Could", then we would have to speculate in order to answer. But, as it stands, the question can be answered with a yes/no with references or explanations. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So the fact that it is about "my wife" and "her pregnancy" is irrelevant, as long as the querent uses the conditional? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that that makes the question a hypothetical one and worthy of not being deleted. We usually encourage OPs to provide context to clarify what they mean. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to put an end to this, this whole thing was done to let someone save face. It wasn't a medical question, but just let it be, its really not worth this amount of attention. My answer treated the question as a non-medical issue [here] however, and my answer should have been left alone, but it escalated due to misunderstanding, and please lets just let the issue die. No use bringing up feelings of grievance, the whole thing is at my talk page. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) For anyone who is just joining, please just let the issue die. Carry this over to my talk page if you really must know the whole story. I completely believe that [my answer] was succinct and needed nothing else, as I treated it non-medically. But I'm willing to let other people say that it was a medical question and remove the article, because the issue has exceeded its limit of time and effort and attention, best thing to do is walk away from it and let it die. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, I'm a bit confused about the "sav[ing] face" thing. (Note that I removed your response because – in general – where a question seeks medical advice our standard practice is to remove the entire thread, not because there was necessarily anything wrong with your own comment.) I am sorry if you've gotten a bit of a rough introduction of Wikipedia, and I don't blame you if you feel a bit perplexed or trod upon.
My greatest concern really wasn't with your remark, it was with StuRat's offer of both a confirmation of diagnosis (based on no examination and no patient history — no one here even knows where in the mouth the new 'tooth' was located) and a prognosis (normal part of growth, nothing to worry about). If there are new editors here who are interested in the guidelines we follow around medical issues, a quick skim through
can't hurt. I also shamelessly plug my personal page with explanation as to why we have the rules that we do: User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?. It's not because we're mean — honest! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, Ten_of_trades, I'll let you get in the last word. We are on opposing viewpoints, and I'll let your decision stand, and let your opinion be the final one. Please, as fellow volunteers, lets agree to not drag this thing out. This is giving me a bad flavor in my mouth, seeing how this thing is getting way too much attention. Its about time we agree to stop adding to this thread. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Nobody is responding to what is being posted. They are just repeating the same things like little children. Unless someone can respond with something constructive, let ToaT's last comment stand and close this. -- kainaw™ 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with long discussions is that editors often do not have the patience to read them before posting. I don't find posting without reading other comments to be childish; Wikipedia operates by consensus, so why should busy users not be allowed to offer their views? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

discussion brought from here

::::I agree. Nobody is responding to what is being posted. They are just repeating the same things like little children. Unless someone can respond with something constructive, let ToaT's last comment stand and close this. -- kainaw™ 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with long discussions is that editors often do not have the patience to read them before posting. I don't find posting without reading other comments to be childish; Wikipedia operates by consensus, so why should busy users not be allowed to offer their views? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


From here

I'm asking permission to modify your comment here because I think that since you and Ten_of_Trades are allowed to make the final opinion and your arguements have been enacted upon, that the minority viewpoint should be able to politely have the closing remark. (that way it reflects positively on yourside (your arguments wins--the action is implemented from concensus) and our side gets to gracefully concede and set a good example of how to behave when we find ourselves not in the concensus). Sentriclecub (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me - but I didn't agree with ToaT. He felt it was asking for medical advice. I said that it was getting close to asking for medical advice and purposely did not remove the question. It was StuRat who took issue with that and pulled "If you aren't with me, you are against me" and lumped everyone else together as being in agreement with one another. -- kainaw™ 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's not personalize this discussion. I never said you were against me, just that you appeared to be for deleting the question as one that requested medical advice. I'm glad to discover that I was wrong on that count, and sorry for the confusion. That seems to make Ten just about the only person here with that position. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

and the next one from here

You responded at the ref desk page to a comment that was pulled from the thread, with permission by kineua. I am placing the message you replied to (which was pulled but accidently reverted) below.

I agree. Nobody is responding to what is being posted. They are just repeating the same things like little children. Unless someone can respond with something constructive, let ToaT's last comment stand and close this. -- kainaw™ 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with long discussions is that editors often do not have the patience to read them before posting. I don't find posting without reading other comments to be childish; Wikipedia operates by consensus, so why should busy users not be allowed to offer their views? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sentriclecub#Deleting_posts_on_the_ref.desk_talk_page Please read my plea to not expand this topic and continue it further. It has caused hurt feelings and both sides have agreed to a ceasefire so that no more harm is done. Here's the original and you replied to a post that was pulled off (with permission). There are a couple users who are inadvertenly mistaking my deletions for disruption, but if you want to discuss this in great detail, I encourage you to be read the discussions all over various user pages. Sorry that you replied to a post which wasn't supposed to exist, and the inconvenience I may have caused you. Sentriclecub (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining the situation. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

End quotes Sentriclecub (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Just, no. Please read the Talk page guidelines. I can't support an editor declaring a discussion closed and then reverting comments that add to that discussion. I don't believe that it is appropriate to declare that a post "wasn't supposed to exist" simply because it appears in response to another post that was inappropriately removed. I recognize that the desire of some editors to have the last word in a discussion can cause discussions to drag on, and that it can sometimes be frustrating to witness the prolonged flogging of a dead horse. I don't think that gives any editor the right to delete comments that are not in violation of the Talk page guidelines. - EronTalk 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record (although of course it's easily available in the page history), I was the one who reverted the deletion of kainaw's remark. Note the spelling of that editor's name, SentricleCub, because your edit summary on the removal said "refer to kineua's forum", and again used that spelling when referring to Kainaw above. I had no idea what "kineua's forum" was supposed to mean - I personally have never seen an editor's talk page referred to as a forum, and I was not clever enough to get from Kainaw to kineua, despite a few common letters. Permission or not, you just don't go around deleting another editor's words from a talk page. If anything, you could have asked Kainaw to remove his own entry and let him make his own decision. As far as the paragraphs below - you did attempt to declare the discussion closed, and you did revert somebody's edits, and Eron never said you deleted his edits. --LarryMac | Talk 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You are fine to comb through all the discussion and pick one or two statements. Truth is that I deleted posts with permission. If you noticed your own contradiction an editor declaring a discussion closed and then reverting comments that add to that discussion. I have not reverted your edits. Read my contributions and their explanations. I neither declared a discussion closed, nor reverted your comments, nor reverted your reverts. If you give me permission to delete one of your comments, and I do so, then its not breaking the rules. If you don't like my enthusiasm explaining why this thread has grown from a mole hill to a mountain, then we are actually not in conflict with one another. Truth is that you really can't defend your recent post, as I successfully dodged your invitation to get baited by continuing the discussion as you thought I might. Thanks for ignoring my discussions at our talk page and trying to cause my stumble here. I'm not the general person who your comments are directed at. Cheers and hope we're not on opposing sides of your next disagreement in the future. Lastly wanted to say i read your edit history and your bio, and I commend your service. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out to you that your removal of talk page posts is contrary to the guidelines. How about I keep the posts? I'm not really trying to look out for just one party. I think that with your recent interests in the matter, it is now best to not remove the comments. If this matter is about whether or not I accept wikipedia's policy when quoted on it, I'm absolutely happy to oblige. Sentriclecub (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_50&oldid=1144585602"