Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 22

Utterly impossible and not feasible
It is utterly impossible and just not feasible to expect answers at the reference desk to be verifiable. There's little (*cough* none *cough*) demand from the OPs for sourced answers. Good thing too, cause like I said it would be impossible and unhelpful --⁪froth T C  05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ref desk should be a learning experience not just spoon feeding. Of course many OP's just want the easy answer. But is that the culture we wish to have here at the ref desk? In my view the ref desk has an educational component to it as well as being a service. The famous proverb that capture this is; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." David D. (Talk) 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also no demand for wrong answers, which should be removed when they are given. - Nunh-huh 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong answers should certainly not be removed, but that wasn't my point. If you think an answer is wrong, then reply to that answer and state your opinion! It's up to the OP to decide whose advice to take, and not up to you to decide who's wrong. Everyone gives their answer, and no editor should interfere with another's good faith answer. It's a symposium, not a panel. --⁪froth T C  05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Froth. How do YOU know the answer is wrong anyway? Can you prove it in all cases?--Light current 16:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRats answer in telomerase is wrong in the sense it goes against all known evidence. But to prove it wrong is another matter and not a trivial response.  Far better to research the answer and present the result of the research, or not answer.


 * I can not say that StuRats answer is wrong ( the experiment has not been done ), I am saying there is no evidence to back up his claim. Either way the ref desk is better without these types of answers. What is important here is that when editors answer a guestion they should ask themselves "do I honestly know enough about this topic to contribute?" If not, then at a minumum, editors should check their answer and present that source. Why the need to answer all questions? David D. (Talk) 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When an answer is wrong it's useless, and the faith with which it is given is irrelevant. Wrong answers get removed. It's neither a symposium nor a panel: it's a reference desk. Correctness (and references) matter. - Nunh-huh 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with that theory is who gets to determine what is correct ? It's not that clear-cut, even experts are often wrong, so how can we allow one editor to unilaterally decide what is incorrect and remove it ?  Instead, if they have counter-evidence, they should present it, then let the OP decide, based on the evidence. StuRat 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V. If even an expert may be wrong then - by the very definition of the term expert - how can we expect a non-expert, unsourced opinion to have any worth whatsoever to the OP? Its the very lack of counter-evidence to back up statement that is the problem. If one was to provide reliable counter-evidence then I'm sure everyone would be happy to let the OP decide for themselves. A comment without counter-evidence, and one which is contrary to sourced expert consensus, does not pose a difficult choice on unilateral removal. Rockpock  e  t  08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand, why is it "utterly impossible and not feasible". What is the process that you use to answer a question? Does it not include a quick google search to check your answer is accurate? Does it not include linking to an appropriate wikipedia page? You're implying you do neither? And this is part of the point I am trying to make.  Shouldn't editors that answer a question take the time to check the accuracy of their answer? This seems like a minimum requirement. Given that premise, it is clear that some kind of source is being consulted, even if it is only a low quality web site. Isn't accuracy more important for the ref desk than quantity? Better someone comes in an answers one question well than three poorly. Please outline why this is  "utterly impossible and not feasible" David D. (Talk) 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many reason why this would be true. The math example above was one.  A question which has never been studied is another, like perhaps the "feasibility of using a hot air balloon to move a house".  I doubt if there was ever any study done on this, but a reasonable answer can be given nonetheless.  Also, I may just lack the search terms.  I have one of those on the Ref Desk right now.  I recalled that there was a person, maybe 50 years ago, who built a cabin in a northern climate and made a documentary on it, starting with nothing more than a few basic tools.  However, without knowing his name, the specific date, or the specific location, I don't know how I would do a Google search on this.  Another reason would just be time.  A person may see a question to which they know the answer, but don't have the time to do the research to "prove" the answer.  It's far better to give the answer without proof than to leave the question unanswered.  I would refer you to a common practice in many math books, which may offer a few elementary proofs, but, rather than clog the pages with complex proofs, instead say something like "the proof is left an exercise for the reader". StuRat 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the ballon answer be linked to factual information such as the lifting capacity of a balloon? With such a source in hand it would be acceptable to say "the calculation is left an exercise for the reader". With regard to the cabin answer, a pointer is certainly helpful, clearly no one who is asking for sources would object to such an answer. What i do object to is when one presents original research that cannot be confirmed, then the original poster is being misled. It is in these rarer instances that people have asked for sources. To harp on about the telomerase example, as that is the example that started this whole debate.


 * Your response above does not get the log cabin exemption because the question has already been answered with sources. Your own response here was misleading opinion that should not be appearing here on the reference desk. This is a classic example of what we should be trying to avoid on ref desk.


 * There is a big difference between answering a question because you know the answer but don't have time to find a ref ( although if you know the answer it normally takes less than a minute to find a source on the web ) and guessing an answer. It is fine for editors to answer the ones they know but we should be fostering a culture here where editors do not answer with a guess, but rather, they avoid those questions or spend time to research a correct answer. And if they have researched the answer, there is no excuse not to share the source. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for any proof that what I said was incorrect, or even a logical argument as to why it is wrong. StuRat 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed this earlier. TenOfAllTrades came back with a good explanation at the time (see context below in box). Your response "restoring the balance when white blood cell count is suppressed. And, if someone already has terminal cancer, anything is worth trying " was even more vague and specualtive than your first answer.  That shows it is a waste of time to try and explain anything to you.  My only goal was to determine if you had some mystery source.  You didn't, there was no need to say more. And i will preempt your deletion argument.  I was not called for your answer to be deleted.  I was trying to confirm if it was a reliable statement since you didn't cite a source.  You couldn't back up your speculation with a source, that is all the OP needed to know. David D. (Talk) 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is "vague and speculative" about statements like "if someone already has terminal cancer, anything is worth trying" ? StuRat 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing, clearly i was talking about the following "restoring the balance when white blood cell count is suppressed" that you use as justification for the latter. I assume you also have no citation for this comment with respect to telomerase and therapy? You did not address the issue of hyperproliferation that directly contradicts all your arguments. You have said previously you are not making this stuff up, so again I ask, where are these ideas coming from? Do you have a friend who is telling you this, someone who does research on telomeres?  Where from, if not made up? David D. (Talk) 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Care and Feeding of Trolls (Regarding Kjvenus)
Kjvenus is an uncorrectable reference desk troll - he has no positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and his posts to the reference desk are designed not to solicit information but rather to generate racialist drama. I had been removing his garbage without comment. In an attempt to reach some sort of consensus, I left his most recent question-as-soapbox up, but with a dismissive and notated comment up ->. Regardless of this, the debate was promptly joined by User:Vranak, who took the bait, hook line and sinker. I consider this attempt at reconsiliation failed, and will KOS future Kjvenus trolling. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interim, however, Vranak removed his reponse, thus returning us to "possibly working." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's good that people are finally coming down on this soapboxing troll. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm too happy that we're still dividing people into 'trolls' and 'useful editors'. It's very easy but not at all helpful. And doesn't KOS stand for 'kill on sight'? Is this the sort of language that's the hallmark of a 'possibly working' desk? Vranak


 * I'd be willing to not call them a troll if they stopped trolling. In my experience with this user, and their contributions (a massive pile of opinion pieces phrased as questions), it's not unreasonable to brand them as a troll. --Wooty Woot? contribs 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know... I tend to think of trolls (internet or otherwise) as being mean-spirited. I don't get that sense about Kjvenus. He or she has an obvious mischevious streak, and it will be good when they understand that the References Desks are not a suitable forum for such silliness... but to call them a troll is stretching the definition a bit, in my view. Vranak


 * I see what you mean, but once Kj was notified that the RDs aren't a soapbox, he continued to make these posts. In an online forum where this is not OK, usually once a good-faith poster was warned, he'd say "oh, ok, I'll leave it to the appropriate channels, sorry". He wouldn't continue making the same posts. And the continuous posts, and reposts of material he knew to be "bad", is provoking the rest of the "board", and that's at least why I've (and I suspect Hipocrite) labeled him a troll. --Wooty Woot? contribs 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone to KJ's talk page to try to talk some sense into him or her. Vranak

I've reminded this user once again that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Since there are no useful edits, I doubt a permanent block would be controversial. But I'm not ready to do that yet- he's not particularly causing much damage, but it's not helpful in any way either. If everyone ignores/removes his trolling, that'll prevent any potential harm without causing needless trouble. So far he's been unresponsive to people's attempts to engage him on his talk page, so that's not a good sign. Friday (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Inarticulate questions
Sometimes our questioners, even if well-intentioned, can be rather inarticulate. In such a case I think it is our duty to try to intuit their psychology a bit, rather than just going off on tangents for the sake of intellectual exercise (which can also be fun, of course). We should remember that the question someone needs answered isn't always the one they're asking. For the question that prompted this bit of wisdom, see Humanities#Population Vs. Ethnicity.--Pharos 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Warrior

 * LINK for anyone who doesn't know where to look Anchoress 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask people to have a look at the scatological and hysterical response to 'Baskets and Bombs', my reply to the Cultural Warrior question, posted on 8 January, and then tell me that all things are worthy of inclusion. During research I carried out on the rise of the Nazi party, I had to read through edition after edition of publications like Völkischer Beobachter, Der Angriff and Der Stürmer. I am reminded, once again, of the style of editorials favoured by the likes of Julius Streicher. Some of you, I feel sure, will understand. Clio the Muse 08:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my opinion is that the response from Loomis is definitely uncivil and possibly a personal attack. If you were to remove his response on these grounds, I wouldn't disagree. Alternatively, you could maybe ask him to remove the response himself, or he could perhaps re-phrase it in more polite terms. Gandalf61 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the reply is uncivil towards you, then you shouldn't remove it, since that makes it look like you removed it "to get even". StuRat 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said on past occasions, I personally will remove nothing, no matter how distasteful I find it, and no matter how personal in tone. I simply had to flag this particular example up for the attention of the community as a whole, because of the questions it raises about etiquette and appropriate usage.  Think of all the casual users who will come across this, and think about the questions raised in their minds.  The abuse itself, savage and incoherent as it is, makes me sad, rather than angry. Clio the Muse 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis has been asked repeatedly to stop this behavior. Since he is either unwilling or unable to do so, i suggest that he no longer take part in any questions which Clio has responded to. If there is agreement here we can post on AN/I and ask uninvolved admins to enforce this measure.&mdash;eric 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support that, should the behaviour continue. That is uncalled-for and quite frankly appalling. Natgoo 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've added my comments to the Baskets and Bombs discussion, under the Edit summary: "Criticism of Israeli policies is not antisemitic". - Hope this helps, Deborahjay 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having come across this thread rather belatedly, I post these thoughts so that my contrary opinion is recorded for future reference. I agree that Loomis’s reply was loud and offensive. Never the less, I question the sincerity of a post that predicts its result (“in full expectation that the following argument is likely to elicit a venomous response”), leading to a complaint about what is plainly stated as the expected result. That seems pretty close to trolling, in the sense of deliberately provoking a flaming response. The reference on this page to a Nazi propagandist could be used to support such a conclusion. I oppose Eric’s suggestion as not taking into acount the nuances of the issue. --Seejyb 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On removal of answers, or even questions
Since removal of content seems to keep rearing its ugly head everywhere, here's my thoughts specifically on removal of content, here in a new section rather than in the context of other discussions.

I have said things along the lines of "Yes, we can sometimes remove content at editorial discretion if it is unhelpful to the ref desk". The problem as I see it, is that some people hear this as "I alone am going to remove whatever I want, for any whimsical reason that strikes me at the time." And, of course, some other editors object to such a ridiculous plan. The problem is, what they're objecting to isn't what's being said.

To use an analogy, let's say I make a statement like "When I drive my car, I may occasionally squeeze the brakes very hard". Someone could respond by saying, "What?! That's ridiculous! Why would you slam on the brakes for no good reason?  You're wearing out your brake pads and tires, and even possibly causing an accident." These objections are "correct" but they miss the point- my statement was about something that might be necessary sometimes, rather than something I want to do as a general habit.

So, I just want to ask everyone to please pay attention to nuance when people discuss this issue. So much misunderstanding could magically melt away if only people would respond to what's being said, rather than what they imagine to be the "true position" of their "opponents". Rather than thinking "Well, my opponent made a statement, so I better find some way to disagree with it", why not just read what's really being said? You may find you don't disagree after all. Friday (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At least two editors should agree before someones (no threatening etc) post is removed. Otherwise I could go round removing all your posts because I dont like you for instance. 8-|--Light current 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect you will find that the kind of things that people want to remove will always have two people who agree. The problem tends to be the ones that disagree once the removal has occurred leading to the arguments. So that a lone will not solve the problem.
 * I still think we need to foster a culture, via your efforts in improving the quidelines, such that answers will never have to be deleted. Obviously we need to reach a consensus on what is acceptable. We currently have a spectrum from "anything is acceptable" to "only correct answers are acceptable". As a group we need to find the line that demarks an answer that can be deleted ( note: I fully expect such deletions to be very rare ), probably somewhere between those two positions.
 * With regard to the questions, it is harder to foster a ref desk culture that will make deletions a thing of the past. Inevitably there will be trollish and soap box rants appearing here from time to time.  Where our culture can improve this situation is to avoid answering such questions, especially if they are to remain on the ref desk while we debate if it should be deleted or not. David D. (Talk) 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe so. But at least to editors should openly agrree before a post is removed. Discussion can then take place as to whether it should have been removed and whether it should be put back.
 * I think I agree about the guidelines encouraging proper answers (and Qs). I also agree that the simples and quickest way to cut a troll dead is just to ignore him/her rather than call for removal of the trollish Q.. Rather that than get into long and tedious arguments with each other about whether X or Y should have replied in the way they did and demanding reply removals. It's better if no replies at all are made to dodgy posts. So if youre not certain the Q is genuine-- dont answer it. That should do it!--Light current 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great to see we have some common ground here. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec, replying to L.c's post above) That's a great example of exactly the kind of missing of the point that I'm talking about. Obviously, removing someone's edits due to a personal grudge is unhelpful to the project and should not be done.  We don't usually need to say this explicitly because people with reasonable adult judgment will already realize this.  Friday (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just gone back, after a few days, to Reference_desk/Humanities, and it has devolved into a messy argument. That sort of thing should definitely be kept off the Reference Desks. Ditto for Reference_desk/Humanities. Carcharoth 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is much sense in what Friday has said here. Despite some unhelpful attempts to polarize the discussion, this isn't some sort of fight between two diametrically opposed camps: one staunchly opposing removal of any comment from the Ref Desk, and one insisting on a right to remove anything that they personally dislike.  Rather, there exists a range of opinions and perspectives, and I actually think that most of us are on the same page – or at least in the same book – when it comes to the question of which comments can be removed without discussion, which may require discussion (and even these are situation dependent), and which are appropriate.


 * For example, I believe that all of the comments in the following categories can be removed without prior discussion and without wikidrama, and I believe that everyone here agrees. Please add a note below if I'm mistaken in those beliefs.  (These are, incidentally, drawn from the proposed, still-a-work-in-progress Reference desk/guidelines.)
 * Death threats.
 * Threats of physical harm.
 * Vandalism.
 * Legal threats.
 * Spam, spamvertising, spam links.
 * Personal attacks.


 * There may be additional categories that qualify for shoot-on-sight treatment, but we'll start there. As far as I can see, these types of comments directly contravene Wikipedia policy, and are never likely to improve the quality of the Desk.  If anyone has a counterexample – that is, a message that could plausibly fit in one of these categories but which ought to remain on the Desk – please provide it.  As always, real examples of actual questions and answers are preferable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that and the list above should be quoted in the guidelines (which I think they are now)--Light current 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten - for clarification, how are you defining vandalism in your list ? Would you subscribe to the strict definition in WP:VANDAL ? I ask because I have seen some editors use the terms "vandal" and "vandalism" with a wider scope than WP:VANDAL. Gandalf61 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to use a fairly strict by-the-book definition of the term vandalism. Whenever I see people misuse 'vandalism' to mean 'POV' or 'something I disagree with' I cringe.  It's needlessly inflammatory and rude, and ArbCom has sanctioned people who have habitually abused the term in the past.  'Vandalism' means 'vandalism', no more and no less. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - thanks - then I agree with the list. Gandalf61 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just skirting the actual issue of off-topicness and non-encyclopedicness (non-verifiability) of the RD --⁪froth T 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, this is all about to become irrelevant, because Hipocrite says over on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines that the emerging guideline has been rejected because "there is strong consensus that this guideline is unnecessary and disruptive". Gandalf61 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...And I disagree with Hipocrite on this. As I note on that talk page, just pull the {proposed} tag and leave the document without a label if it's still a work in progress.  Patience is a key part of policy development.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RD archive caption
On the front WP:RD page, the description for the Archives as it stands is

''Questions are archived regularly. Feel free to cut & paste from the archives if you would like further discussion.''

I changed it (diff) to

Reference Desk questions are archived daily

with the reasoning that "how to ask & answer" related questions should go in that section, not in the description of the Archives (i.e. OPs shouldn't start recieving instructions on how to ask until they've actually chosen a desk). The archival information is available in the right column of "How to ask" as well as at the top of the archives page. Also I don't think that "if you would like further discussion" would make sense to a user.. it's not clear that they should copy from the archives only if their question was archived before it was adequately answered.

User:Jones2 reverted my change and requested that I bring it up here. I've just put my version back up and request comments.

If you have a problem with the copy-and-paste idea itself (it wasn't my idea!) put it under a separate heading --⁪froth T C  19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Page size and archiving
This page is now 364 kb long. Should part of it be archived pretty soon?--Light current 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems that somebody archived it in Archive 20 but never removed the content from the WT page --⁪froth T C  02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it seems that Froth and I were both edit conflicting each other, me with archive 20 and Froth with archive 21.  :-)  --hydnjo talk 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah that would be it. It did seem that something strange was going on. I think I cleaned everything up --⁪froth T C  02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to Froth: I was loading archive 20 prior to cutting it from this page (just in case). Happened that you and I were on the "same page". :-)  --hydnjo talk 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion seeking Q removed to here
I removed this Q and A session. --Light current 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who would win in a fight between a steel octo-bear and some sort of strange man-fungus?

Now, before I get assaulted with DYOH's and 'Wikipedia is not for original research', I wanna say, yes, this is a homework question, but its the concept I'm having trouble with, not getting the answer, so could somebody please explain rigorously, and using the scientific method, who, and why? ≈Eh-Steve 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Is this even meant to be a serious question? --`/aksha 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt it, but my money is on the steel octo-bear, man fungus would be squishy. Vespine 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of 'the concept' are you having trouble with? In the "X vs Y" speculations, experts tend to agree that the biggest factor is size; the larger combatant will win in a one-on-one fight. Which of your two combatants is the larger? Try reading up on Animal Face-Off, or check THIS GOOGLE SEARCH for more information. Anchoress 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if this isnt a question for immediate deletion (on the grounds of asking for opinions) I dont know what is!! I propose speedy deletion. Can I have a seconder? 8-(--Light current 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a second for you. --Kainaw (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah... I see no-one watched Shooting Stars. What happpened to the days when this refdesk used to be about seagulls? Hmph.


 * OK watch it go!!!--Light current 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

-

Another question
Well if that question deserves removal (and I'm not arguing about whether or not it does), then shouldn't THIS question, which is actually more of an opinion-seeking question, be removed also? Anchoress 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh come on anchoress, it's not a serious question. But my money is definately on the steel octo bear, unless the man fungus is some gigantic jungle-sized monster --⁪froth T C  02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it wasn't a serious question, but it wasn't removed because it wasn't a serious question (and as I said, I'm not objecting to the removal); it was removed because it was seeking opinion. Anchoress 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No my question probably has a real answer. There must have been some research done on this somewhere.--Light current 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of these questions led to responses which were little more than chatty-cathy sessions with trolls. Either individuals will learn to stop responding to provocation with cutsie-footsie with trolls, or this desk will go. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you cant see the difference between the two Qs, I seriously question your judgement. 8-(--Light current 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see *minor* differences between the questions. One is transparently trolling, and the other is more professional trolling. If you actually wanted meaningful answers to your question, you would have witten in a professional tone, as opposed to the informal tone you wrote in. Both questions have devolved into worthless chatting with refdesk trolls at this point. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No Im sorry, if you look at the draft guidelines, they say that all Qs (aprt from obvious trolling) however badly written deserve an answer. I wrote my Q in proper respectful English. How else should I have phrased it? Also the responses are not the responsibility of the OP-Light current 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are a sophisticated user, who should be expected to take care to not feed trolls. That you think abiding by the letter of a stupid guideline prevents you from being required to use common sense is the basic problem here. It's not a game. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OTC. All life is a game. Then you die--Light current 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to get your pantalones in a bunch. Also try being more civil; vicious remarks like that cause more trouble than casual chats with trolls --⁪froth T 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Froth, cut the crap, this all looks like a big fat baiting game from my seat so you deserve what you get, and its probably less than you hoped for. It is not helping this discussion. David D. (Talk) 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From my seat, your seat is the one sitting in the giant pile of crap. I'm no troll. --⁪froth T 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please, spare me your edit count. It is meaningless, as any one who has been around here a while should know. You came up with the phrase "utterly impossible and just not feasible" above.  Totally counter productive to a discussion. If that is your attitude then one has to wonder what you are doing here? David D. (Talk) 04:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have twice your number of edits on the WT page and more than twenty times yours on the main RD. Hardly meaningless, especially as you consider yourself a regular (not that that means anything) and as we don't both have a large number of RD contributions (like LC compared to me for example). By the way, calling an opponent's argument wrong is no defense. My statement above is on the tail end of a lengthy debate over verifiability and enc on the RD, it wasn't a blanket statement pulled out of nowhere.--⁪froth T 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I see the argument from authority, well I'm sorry if I'm not as in tune with the original posters as you appear to be. I'm content with my 180 contributions to the science desk over the years and i have had no need to chat here, until it started flowing on to the ref desk itself. I have seen what ref desk was like and what it has become. The culture here has changed for the worse.


 * I never implied your comment came from nowhere or was wrong, I said it was counter productive. You seem happy to spoon feed. I think this place should be more than that. To declare that it is impossible, no, "utterly impossible" to provide sources to answers is quite bizarre. And to boot, it's "not feasible"! So why not explain, plenty of others seem to have no problem achiving this challenge. David D. (Talk) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all in response to your accusation that I was trolling. My post of edit counts was in defense of my worth as an editor. As for the counter-productive thing, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I say it's most productive to not cite sources and in fact it's impossible to expect sources to always apply (and some fantastic points have been raised on that issue, to the point where that front has kind of backed down). You say my view is wrong (counter-productive) and offer no explanation, thus "calling an opponent's argument wrong is no defense". My statement was in response to a flaring-up of an issue (verifiability) that I thought had been uneasily settled (try to cite when possible, but don't expect it). I take a rather strong stance on verifiability. A significant amount of content on the RD is unsourcable and it's ridiculous to 1) Expect verifiability on basically anything but a cookie-cutter link to a WP article 2) Expect answers to always be right since they're not verifiable. That's why I used such strong language. --⁪froth T 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (indent in for space) OK why don't you cite where I said you were wrong. Counter productive is not synonymous with wrong. Is that what you are referring too? i never said all things have to be sourced. However, when editors make extraordinary claims in their answer they should be sourced. A culture of using sources is never a bad thing. To consider it impossible is counter productive. What am I missing here?
 * I have no problem of a settlement of "try to cite when possible, but don't expect it" clearly not everything is citable. But don't tell me that a complex answer from an expert opinon should not or cannot be cited.  If one knows enough on the topic to answer with an extraordinary claim then then they know enough to find a citation. If not, what is the answer worth? What is worse, if an editor does not cite an extrordinary claim, but is asked for the reference, why shouldn't they provide said reference.  If they can't provide it how do we know it is correct? This is a ref desk, right?
 * With respect to your last two points 1) why is it ridiculous to provide a link outside a cookie cutter link. If one knows the topic at hand enough to answer the question then one should be able to find a link quite quickly. 2) " it's ridiculous to expect answers to always be right since they're not verifiable." ???  not sure what your point is here. David D. (Talk) 06:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's good to hear that you support "try to cite when possible, but don't expect it". However you're skirting very close to the edge of strongly suggesting (which quickly turns into demanding) verifiability to RD answers. This is one of the original, fundamental issues that this entire debate is based on, and I realize it's a fine line to walk but we're pretty paranoid about it at this point! When I saw your point way up there about suggesting verifiability I thought "uh oh not again" and defended against the stronger position of "Always Cite" to preclude even it being brought up. I see now that some of the statements you've made that I thought were inconsistent actually aren't completely exclusive and you might just be walking right down that razor thin line (very similar to friday's from my reading) which I can certainly respect. There are still some points that I can't for the life of me see how with which you can remain consistent but it's such a snowball effect at this point that my position in this little mini-conflict is no longer tenable. To give you some closure on those last 2 points, 1) Other than cookie-cutter links, there's no guarantee that a claim is even verifiable (not verified, verifiable). 2) Since only cookie cutter links are guaranteed verifiable, all other claims are guaranteed fallable and we shouldn't be surprised when they're wrong. This was more of a sub point to address the freak-out over sturat's speculative answer, and a not very good sub point at that! --⁪froth T 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you rememeber when this was discussed before? As in which archive. David D. (Talk) 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability? It's been a persistent issue throughout, but for the really long stuff try archives 14-19. Search the pages for "source" --⁪froth T 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now now Gentlemen (or ladies) please try to keep things civil! Thank you1 8-)

Reference_desk/Humanities Why is it necessary for regulars to ask questions? It seems that those experienced in answering questions would be pretty good at finding answers. The way this question is phrased is so subjective I'm not even sure it has any academic worth. Sorry LC but i would have expected a little more sophistication from one so accomplished at researching others questions. You really can't find the answer to this or a better forum to ask it? i hope you are not experimenting to see how close to the wire you can fly. David D. (Talk) 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regulars have every right to ask Qs. This is a Q in which I have a personal interest ATM. THis is not really a topic that one can search for and get an answer. If it was I would have expected a few links by now. What forum would you recommend for Qs of this sort?
 * As regards the 'wire', I think I'm miles away from it. I've flown a lot closer before! And had my wings singed 8-)--Light current 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a regular Icarus. But i do agree with hipocrite that it seems to be written to induce a chat session. But since I'm a science regular, and rarely see stuff on the humanities ref desk, maybe this is normal for that page? I have nothing against regulars asking a legitimate question now and then but sometimes i wonder if they are just for chat. A good qustion from a regular recently was the yams on trees one. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So what? Do we need to examine the motives of every question? And why is the issue of regulars asking questions even an issue? We're users like everyone else. --⁪froth T 05:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I can assure you that my Q was genuine. Even I dont know everything! I just want some understanding of the different reactions of the sexes to risque jokes/innuendo and the reasons. Perhaps you are already aware of the answers.--Light current 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thinking aloud, but I know your research skills are pretty good I've seen you use them. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not on humanities Im afraid! 8-(--Light current 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will defend to the death the right of any regular to ask any question. I do it myself from time to time - I did it today in fact.  Whether questions are designed to elicit chat is another issue - but chat is in itself not a bad thing, and is certainly not against the rules.  Some questions simply don't have a black and white answer, and there will be many opinions.  JackofOz 05:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Defend to the death?" Geez, let's not take things all that seriously.  This is an encyclopedia, not a life or death situation.   Obviously, saying it's fine for people to ask any question is overstating the case.  Some questions are not ref desk material. Chat might not be necessarily, but it's non-helpful and sometimes turns harmful.  Since there's no advantage and a possible disadvantage to it, it should be avoided.  The possible multitude of different expert opinions on a given topic has nothing to do with this.  Friday (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Two issues I'd defend to the wiki-death (indef blocking or voluntary leaving): The regular's right to ask a question (not that big of a deal right now but David D. even bringing it up is appalling) and the open atmosphere of free academic and -yes- even somewhat social discussion (in academic context!) that a couple of the so-termed deletionists set out to "fix" (not so much you friday). I assume wiki-death is what jack is referring to --⁪froth T 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My quote from above "I have nothing against regulars asking a legitimate question now and then but sometimes i wonder if they are just for chat". Why is this appaling? David D. (Talk) 06:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about some more quotes: "Why is it necessary for regulars to ask questions? It seems that those experienced in answering questions would be pretty good at finding answers." "Sorry LC but i would have expected a little more sophistication from one so accomplished at researching others questions." Then there are the comments I'd normally be willing to take in good faith, like the one you just quoted and "You really can't find the answer to this or a better forum to ask it?". But if you're leaning toward the first two quotes, that's dangerous territory that you'll find no support in (it's been tried before). --⁪froth T 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm seeing people asking for editors to stop the chat, followed by chatty-type question going up on the ref desk. Hence the flying close to the wire comment. David D. (Talk) 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Chat questions are the best kind! This is a problem that plagues the entire project, but the RD has spawned its own little maybe first-time conflict of the classic exopedian-metapedian philosophies. --⁪froth T  07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly. The're classic philosophies? I'll read up. David D. (Talk) 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as classic as a social phenomenon in a 5 year old website can be :) But they do have that classic ring --⁪froth T 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK froth i read the stuff on exopedian-metapedian philosophies. You identify with metapedians? i have to say i cannot identify with either. I edit and interact although i am much more exo when it comes to the roles of editors.  I've never given anyone a barnstar, for example. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(adjusting indent) OK, "defend to the death" was an over-reaction. But an over-reaction to what I considered an extreme position (viz. Why is it necessary for regulars to ask questions? It seems that those experienced in answering questions would be pretty good at finding answers. The way this question is phrased is so subjective I'm not even sure it has any academic worth. Sorry LC but i would have expected a little more sophistication from one so accomplished at researching others questions.). People wear many hats. Sometimes we wear a Ref Desk Regular hat. Sometimes we wear Private Citizen hat. This isn't like some company where we're paid to do research and come up with answers and have to account for our time. There should be no expectations of expertise laid upon anybody, ever. We're all volunteers here. Which questions we tackle and which we avoid is determined by a host of complex personal factors. That one person might know answers to many questions, or know how to quickly find out, does not necessarily mean they know answers to other questions. Finally, anyone who puts himself in the position of guru (ie. one who has all the answers but never has any need to ask questions) is of no use to me, here or anywhere. I like to deal with fallible humans, not robots. JackofOz 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack, I agree with all above. The point I was making when i asked the question was that "some of these question appears to be designed to test the limits of the desk". The fact is, I was wondering whether the question was genuine or designed to start a fight. I still don't know for sure, but I am sensing an antagonism on this desk that is not helping differences become resolved. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought
If we didnt have this talk page, how many arguments between RD editors and critics would there be? More or fewer 8-)--Light current 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS This is is serious Q aimed at reducing the amount of needless chit chat and navel gazing on THIS page!--Light current 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's a critic? We're all just editors.  Friday (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but some editors are critical of other editors, are they not?--Light current 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing is a collaborative process- we work together to help the project. This means criticism needs to be involved, yes. Friday (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im talking needless arguments like on this page --Light current 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Healthy debate is never needless since it helps us define and refine our postions. So a certain amount os sparring is inevitable to get closer to a any kind of compromise. Off topic does not help for sure. David D. (Talk) 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd call needless argument that new sturat RFC. But as for this page, I'm going to have to go with healthy debate as long as wikistress doesn't get too bad --⁪froth T 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you stopped trolling the reference desks, we'd certainly have fewer arguments here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 07:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pleas do not make such accusations. You are being offensive (again) (WP:CIV--Light current 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling: remove, ignore, or play it down?
As soon as I saw Reference_desk/Miscellaneous it seemed trollish to me. However I tried a new strategy, by responding in a no-nonsense way rather than removing it. Looking at how it went after that, maybe it should have been removed instead. If people would take the hint and not feed the trolls, removal wouldn't matter, but if people are taking the bait, that's another matter. Of the responders, I thought Rmhermen did the right thing, but V-Man737 is just handing out troll food. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm strongly in favour of the "play it down" option. Don't give a big reaction like they want, just answer the question as straight as possible (as you did there). This limits the chances that somebody mis-identified as a troll (that's not really trolling) will be "censored" inappropriately. Unfortunately, the downside of this is that some of the more persistant troll's might just start asking worse and worse questions, trying to see how far they can push the line before somebody finally snaps and gives them the reaction that they're looking for. But at least it avoids the delicate arguements about whether the questioner is really a 39 year old man trolling or an 11 year old girl with lots of questions, and things like that. --Maelwys 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday - what makes you so certain that the questioner is trolling ? It's a rather ghoulish question, but it could in principle be answered factually and objectively. And, if I understand the .50 BMG article correctly, it is legal to own a weapon that fires this ammunition in most US states - so how do we know this isn't a serious question from a prospective purchaser ? Gandalf61 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says I'm certain? However between the username and the question, I'd put this one in the "90% likely to be trolling" category.  Or, more accurately, the "let's start a speculative conversation about gory wounds" category, which is hardly encyclopedic. However, as Maelwys smartly points out above, if we take the "play it down" approach, this has the advantage of being a good way to respond, whether or not there were original trollish intentions.  Friday (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you sounded very certain when you said "V-Man737 is just handing out troll food". I don't think we should be so quick to cry "troll" every time we see a strange question on the RDs. After all, if the questioner is serious, they could find it offensive to be labelled a troll - and rightly so. To be compatible with WP:CIV and WP:AGF, I think we should apply a very high standard of proof before we start implying that a questioner is trolling. And this particular question just doesn't get over the bar, as far as I am concerned. Gandalf61 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Contibution history of the "not-troll" -> . Clearly, not a troll. Look at all those valuable not-trollish contributions. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-hoc rationalisation. Gandalf61 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Friday obviously knew it was a troll - that he was right is a demonstration of Proof. One wonders what the cost of stopping the troll food is, exactly. What value was gleaned by the extended discussion with this individual? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the objection of " if the questioner is serious, they could find it offensive to be labelled a troll" is exactly why I responded the way I did, instead of with "Go away, troll" or some similar. Friday (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated, reference desk responders have demonstrated an inability to identify trolls, and an unwillingness to listen to others who have identified such. Trollish questions are far more likley to get detailed (worthless, unresearched, purely speculative) answers than questions asked seriously that require detailed, valuable, researched unspeculative answers. This is because the reference desks are treated like a chat room. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That question doesn't seem trollish to be at all, and certainly not 90%. These things are fascinating to young boys! --⁪froth T 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Children are welcome to chat about whatever they like on any number of other websites. They are not welcome to do this at Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Why should children not be allowed to seek out information on wikipedia? There's no way I'm going to discriminate by age for determining whether a question is valid. The OP was seeking an answer to a specific question, not "chat" and that's exactly what the RD is for. --⁪froth T 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was obvious, but it's the "chatting about whatever they like" that doesn't belong. This does not depend on the age of the chatters.  Adults who act like disruptive children are still problems, regardless of their age.  We can't know anything about editors personally and we shouldn't want to- we should let the editing speak for itself.  Friday (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, letting the editing speak for itself, it's not an especially "chatty" thread so far. Mainly factual responses with relevant links. V-Man737 asks a subsidiary question, which Dave6 answers. Not a problem thread so far, but let's see how it develops. Gandalf61 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What would it matter how it develops? It's a legitimate question, period. --⁪froth T 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Long, long ago when I was an anonymous IP editor, I asked a question on the reference desk and there was some concern as to whether it was trollish or not. Eventually the contributors decided to assume that my question was sincere and genuine. It was answered in this manner, and I learned something new, and everyone was happy. I was very impressed that my seemingly ambiguous question was taken at best possible face value, despite my shortcomings in wording, and decided that I am a person who will always assume good faith where possible. Looking at the question now, it may indeed be possible that the question was meant as a bait, but I am focusing on the more important possibility that the OG OP actually has a genuine question that could be answered. Yeah, if it starts going down a gory path, we can walk away without feeding any trolls. But to make a big fuss over it would be what a troll wants. Taking a look at the OP's contributions, I'd say that in addition to assuming good faith, we should also make an extra effort to avoid biting. Yeah, I suppose my response could have been a bit less emotional (but come on, who has a head the size of a basketball?). I'll try to suppress the comical and emotional side when dealing with possible (and, of course, confirmed) bait from now on. V-Man737 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we focus on providing factual, encyclopedic answers, either by linking to Wikipedia articles or other reliable sources, we can avoid the whole issue. In short, the reference desk should be a reference desk.  Friday (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So would you like to edit the 'purposes' section of the guidelines to reflect that?--Light current 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All but one of the 12th January questions have disapeared
Could someone with more know-how than me please reinstate them.

Silly or off-topic is not necessarily bad
See Reference_desk/Entertainment. This is a good illustration of non-encyclopedic silliness that doesn't hurt anything. The question is already somewhat frivolous and quite speculative by nature, so it doesn't reflect poorly on the project to respond in kind. This is why we need editors to use good judgment, not follow some exact and strict set of rules. Friday (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good example of exactly the sort of crap that should be deleted immediately. Its a complete waste of time speculating on imaginary situations.--Light current 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize you're being sarcastic, but, taking your statement at face value: if someone deleted this as irrelevant, I would not revert it. But, I wouldn't do it myself, and I'd express my disagreement on the talk page.  It's irrelevant, but it's causing no harm- the question is being answered in the spirit it was asked. Friday (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not being sarcastic. I think these silly Qs are a waste of RD staff time and a waste of its space. 8-|--Light current 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really am beginning to doubt your judgement, common sense and sincerity, Friday when I see the above post and this


 * :If we focus on providing factual, encyclopedic answers, either by linking to Wikipedia articles or other reliable sources, we can avoid the whole issue. In short, the reference desk should be a reference desk.  Friday (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * posted all within the space of 3 hours. Have you had some sort of conversion?--Light current 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in one case I was talking about how to avoid thread turning into problems. In another case, I was talking about a thread that hadn't turned into a problem.   We should focus on factual, encyclopedic answers.  This doesn't mean that diversions into un-encyclopedic material are automatically harmful.  See the distinction?  This is why exact rules are no substitute for judgment.  Friday (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's judgement?--Light current 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that topic, when I saw it I realized what my heart had been pining for! V-Man737 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since a few people expressed surprise at the apparent contradiction in me pointing to this as a "not harmful" diversion, I'll try to elaborate. Yes, I want to cut down on chat and banter. Sometimes it gets out of hand. But it's not always harmful- this is an example of why we say "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." This question is being answered in the spirit it was asked- to me, this counts for a lot. Does this silly conversation help the project? No. But I can't see how it really hurts anything, so why the heck would I stick my neck out wanting to remove it? I'd rather spend time removing (if I must) off-topic stuff that I think could be harmful. In my opinion the "could be harmful" category of conversations include things like that turn sexual or gory when the original question was unrelated. Children and little old ladies might read the ref desk - we don't want to take a chance at being offensive for no reason. Also, almost any chat about controversial topics raises my eyebrows. Since we're not a forum, we don't want people rehashing controversial debates. We have enough work keeping our articles on controversial topics in good shape, because people have strong points of view. We're just borrowing trouble by having nonexpert debate on these topics. This is part of why we say we shouldn't forget about things like verifiability and neutrality, even on article talk pages or the ref desk. Friday (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You wanted to remove a lot of my harmless posts. I say agian: I really am beginning to doubt your judgement, common sense and sincerity 8-(--Light current 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like a valid question, not even something off topic but tolerable. Barely valid, sure, but I would never remove it --⁪froth T 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this went without saying at first, but now I think clarification is in order. An important aspect of Wikipedia is picking one's battles. Don't fight uphill for some minor improvement, where there are bigger/easier improvements to be made. To me, stamping out all chatting with an iron fist would be an exceedingly foolish thing to try. This is part of why I'm far more concerned about potentially harmful off-topic ref desk content than I am about a silly question being given a silly answer. Friday (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from my talk for gen consumption
--Light current 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, please: if this is about Light current, it belongs on his talk page. If it's about the ref desk, it belongs here.  Ned Wilbury 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its essentialy a discussion about the RDs and what Friday wants on them. --Light current 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate here since it is about testing the boundaries not only LC's comments but with respect to the ref desk too. It is a hard call but since LC copy and pasted here I am OK with it. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its possible that this thread may fit better on guidelines talk, if Ned wants it moving.--Light current 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I find this situation problematic

I made an effort to explain my outlook on this at Silly_or_off-topic_is_not_necessarily_bad. My view is not simply black and white- there's nuance there. You have to actually read it and think about it to understand it. But you give no indication of having done so- instead you insist on describing this in a single word "schizto", and you make snarky little comments about it on irrelevant pages. Now, I consider myself a fairly patient person, so it's not that this bothers me personally. But how can you not understand that this is an ineffective way to come to some agreement? Your behavior made it appear to me that you were going out of your way to have a fight, rather than come to some mutually acceptable agreement. This is harmful editing behavior. You insist that you don't need a "working relationship" with me. Well, if you're going to be active on the ref desks, I'm afraid you do need a working relationship with me. Because I edit there too. This is the basic behavioral expectation we have of all editors: collaborate, don't fight. If you're unable to understand and correct this problem, I think the difficulties you've had here will only continue. Friday (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS Don't know if you've seen it, but check out this edit- a message to you, from an uninvolved editor. If you'll not listen to me, based on past experiences, I hope you'll listen to this guy.  Friday (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There will never be agreement unless you adopt my ideas. I dont deal with people who change thier story in mid stream without very good reason. What is your reason for suddenly allowing stupid Qs and discussion on the RDs when you have been dead against it and have complained to me about it so many yimes. Your position is untenable. Please do not speak to me on the issue. Please do not email me and plaese do not post on my talk page. I have no wish to speak to you ever again. Is that clear enough?--Light current 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to figure out if this is a parody or not. As McEnroe used to say, "you can't be serious?". It seems to me that in most compromises on wikipedia at least half those involved disagree. Most shift the position and adjust to a mutally tolerable peace. In summary, one does not have to agree to reach a workable agreement. The key is to find something tolerable. David D. (Talk) 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah most people shift posn a bit, but Friday appears to have done a 180. do you not find that suspicious? I do! And Friday, if this is now his true position, is out of line with everyone including me!--Light current 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Above was in response to your first sentence, you have added more since i responded (due to edit clashes). In response to the subsequent bit, I don't fully understand why you think people cannot change their stance? It seems to me that Friday intially want to delete the whole reference desk but then realised it served a role that s/he had not anticipated, hence keep it without the jokes, now there is a move to allowing some silly stuff since it can lead to some interesting answers if treated in an encyclopedic fashion. You really should consider that your arguments to defend your postion have been effective rather than to suspect a trap. Its a shame, you seem to be a victim of your own success here. You should be feeling good about this not angry. David D. (Talk) 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, I had forgotten about that earlier U turn by Friday. So why should we believe what he says now-- he could change his mind again tomorrow. I dont think his arguments are worth considering at all - they just waste everyones time and raise BP. 8-((--Light current 15:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I have been blocked twice (once by friday) unjustly over this issue and thing arising from it. So yuo ecxpect me to be all sweetness and f@@@@g light ATM?


 * No i think it's good for you to gripe and moan, to a certain extent, but, you hold many of the keys to the success of the ref desk, so don't get too distracted. Actually, you are the most reasonable of all those who defend StuRats position, but you do love to test the boundaries, unfortunately, hence your long block log.  You know it too, the Steve McQueen analogy (re: great escape) was so appropriate. David D. (Talk) 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think I test the boundaries so much as I dont know where they are. Others think they do. That is why I believe its important for us to have fairly clear guidelines. If one is going to explore the boundaries one must have rough idea of where they are. If I had just been probing the boudaries, I would not have been blocked. It could be that the boundaries are far closer than I imagined. Either that or we have far too many anally retentive and politically correct people acting here.--Light current 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what gets you into trouble, its the little throw away quips. For example; "Either that or we have far too many anally retentive and politically correct people acting here". Surely there is a better way to say this without it coming across as an insult. With respect to the boundaries, i think if you read what Zfriday is writing he is trying to define his boundaries. StuRat and Froth have also defined their boundaries above. This seems like a good starting point for framing the deletion debate that StuRat, for one, seems to be focused on. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Who am I insulting. If the cap fits, people can put it on!--Light current 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec- I assume Light current is being sarcastic here, but that's alright. Humor can be helpful, sometimes.) I thought I had already done so in some cases.  The work you've done on the guidelines is good- I generally accept those ideas.  If you're holding out for complete agreement tho, well, geez, that's a tall order.  There are plenty of reasonable, good editors out there who I disagree with on any number of issues.  I doubt you'll find two editors who completely agree on everything. Is there some specific idea of yours that you feel I need to accept and have not?  I can live with disagreement over what content is or isn't appropriate at the ref desk.  Friday (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fridays Last chance
Just why do you think Discussing fights between fictional charactersr is allowable, yet Qs about SOCIAL SCIENCE are not. Make it good-- this is your last chance to convince me that you do not have completley muddled ideas that are not worth wasting time on.--Light current 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You ask me never to talk on your talk page, and then you ask me a question you appear to want an answer to.  Oh well, remove this if you'd rather not have it here.  My discussion of the basic issue is where it belongs, on the ref desk talk page.  I linked to it above.  To answer your specific question, there is no answer to that question.  I have never been of the opinion that questions about social sciences are off-limits for the ref desk.  This would be a rather crazy opinion to have.  Not sure where you got this idea.  But, let me say this: I have enough work to do trying to explain my actual opinions.  Please, don't try to get me to spend my time explaining why I don't have opinions that I don't have.  We're all volunteers and our time is limited- let's use it well.  Friday (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Needless to say you have not convinced me. EOC--Light current 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sayyyyy...
Suppose there's a ( medival keeping that for the recordmedical) doctor who wants to regularly contribute to the RD. Would this doctor be allowed to give medical advice?


 * No. --HappyCamper 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What would he say when he gets to the part where we're supposed to go "I am not a doctor?" V-Man737 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, he says "IAAD, but advice here may be worth no more than you paid for it." alteripse 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IAAD but this is not my consulting/exam room. Or IAAD, but Im off duty right now--Light current 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am not your doctor." Natgoo 14:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Natgoo&mdash;I suspect that in most cases a doctor or lawyer who is familiar with the ethical and legal implications of giving advice in a forum such as this will be wise enough to avoid offering such advice.


 * Katy Ellen Deady has written one detailed examination of the potential personal and professional consequences of giving 'cyberadvice', at "Cyberadvice: The ethical implications of giving professional advice over the Internet" in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.  I point to it because it is quite detailed and thorough, because access to the article is free (as in beer), and because it was the first relevant scholarly Google hit on the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. Thanks for posting. And if we take Ms. Deady's advice, we should be very careful to only allow untrained and incompetent medical and legal answers to be posted here. I am not kidding, and apparently neither is she. She certainly makes me hesitate to correct the next piece of arrant medical nonsense somebody puts up here. alteripse 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unh! Ms. Deady seems to be rather trained and competent. We shouldn't take her advice. :-P That article would be very beautiful as an external link in the guidelines page for RD. V-Man737 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the most part, health care professionals are only licensed to practice in certain jurisdictions. See telemedicine. -THB 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Her argument is that professionals should not post at all unless they are licensed in all the jurisdictions from which people might ask questions, because we have to assume that people asking questions might act on the answers. alteripse 05:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear, there is an explicit exception for responding to questions of a general nature, rather than giving specific advice. To wit,


 * "Casual conversation between two people, one of who happens to be a lawyer"38 so-called cocktail party conversations - does not create a binding duty. A lawyer may, for example, answer "a casual, general question about the law, for instance in a purely social setting, without a client-lawyer relationship arising."39 Very often a clear distinction is made between professionals giving advice of a general nature, which does not give rise to a duty, and answering questions specifically geared to a real factual and legal situation.
 * Very often a clear distinction is made between professionals giving advice of a general nature, which does not give rise to a duty, and answering questions specifically geared to a real factual and legal situation.
 * Giving legal advice has been viewed as a hallmark of the attorney-client relationship and the bar has been distinctly hostile to lawyers answering questions about specific legal issues, regardless of the medium in which these responses are given.41....
 * Applying this test to the cyberadvice context, the attorney-client relationship becomes quite evident. By posting a specific legal question, the putative client manifests the intent to have a lawyer provide legal advice.44 The lawyer can then manifest consent to provide such advice by either posting or sending a message to the client expressly stating consent or by performance - by actually providing the legal advice.45
 * Case law further supports this interpretation....
 * Applying this test to the cyberadvice context, the attorney-client relationship becomes quite evident. By posting a specific legal question, the putative client manifests the intent to have a lawyer provide legal advice.44 The lawyer can then manifest consent to provide such advice by either posting or sending a message to the client expressly stating consent or by performance - by actually providing the legal advice.45
 * Case law further supports this interpretation....


 * The above quoted passage applies to legal professionals, where there is more case law established. The courts are likely to hold a similar view for medical professionals, though there isn't the same body of law ("There has not been, to date, any significant litigation about the specific issue of duty in a medical cyberadvice context") for telemedicine in this type of forum compared to telelaw. Footnote links and full text are, of course, in the article I originally linked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Metacomments from Misc. desk moved here
moved rather than deleted because i'm an Antiremovalist!!!

From Reference_desk/guidelines: The reference desk is not a place to rehash the debate about Creation, evolution, the Apollo moon landing hoax, or any other kind of controversy.  I think this pretty much says it all. Friday (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion is perfectly competent for this forum as it is an aspect of evolution and not an argument about evolution itself. 8-|--Light current 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was this removed? I was trying to discourage people from rehashing debates.  My warning cannot serve this function where it's sitting here, so you're interfering this removal interferes with my attempt to keep the ref desk on topic with this move.  I don't appreciate that.  Friday (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who moved what?--Light current 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was removed here. But it's moot now, per eric below.  Sorry for the confusion- I mistakenly implied it was you who removed it, which isn't correct at all.  My apologies! Friday (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So put it back --⁪froth T 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and a second time here.&mdash;eric 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question removed&mdash;eric 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof that gayness is environmental
Who said you could remove it? Reinstaing her pending discussion.--Light current 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume that gayness is genetic. Gay people have fewer children, if any, than straight people. Evolution favors straight people. Gayness dies out. This hasn't happened, so gayness cannot be genetic. Therefore gayness is environmental.--216.164.192.181 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume that cystic fibrosis is genetic. People with CF have fewer children. Evolution favors non-CF people. CF dies out. This hasn't happened, so CF can't be genetic-- OOPS we know the gene for CF and it certainly is genetic. Many genetics traits that represent an apparent reproductive disadvantage have not died out. alteripse 05:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah mang, there are plenty of gay animals. Vitriol 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "gayness" in itself is counter-evolutionary, just lack of reproduction. What about bisexuality? 惑乱 分からん 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Metacomments moved to RD talk page.)

The same argument can of course be said of genetic diseases too, why are some cancers, diabetes, etc hereditary? Wouldn't they have died out and caused all those genes to not exist? They're still around, so why wouldn't homosexuality if it is genetic? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because straight people with cancer and other stuff still have kids, but gays almost always don't.--216.164.192.144 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look you lot. Being Queer just aint normal. Its perverted!

--Light current 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Was that removed? Why? Come on, we don't expect OPs to have any idea what they're talking about- that's why they're coming to the RD. We can't set him straight if the discussion is sitting on the talk page --⁪froth T 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Were you punning? We don't want responses that attempt to "set him straight"&mdash;in other words engage in further debate. We want to point to existing reliable sources and article content, not feed the troll.&mdash;eric 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that after Lc's reinstatement, this thread was removed again, this time by Eric, with the comment "rm trolling". Once again, I must disagree with this removal. The question is a perfectly legitimate one - we even have an entire, well written article on Biology and sexual orientation, which says that there is no scientific consensus on how biology/genetics influences sexual orientation, but it does present lots of detailed information. The final response in the thread should have been deleted, but the rest of the thread is civil and polite. And the best example we can provide to the anon editor who posted that final homophobic response is to show him that sexual orientation is a perfectly normal subject which can be discussed in a sensible, mature and rational way. Have we now reached the stage where certain topics are deleted on sight from the RDs ? How long must that list of topics become ? Do we delete every controversial topic and label it "troll", because we can't be bothered to provide the questioner with objective, factual information ? This is beginning to look very much like censorship to me. Gandalf61 12:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this could be the basis of a perfectly legitimate question for the reference desk, but here there was no question. The OP made a statement designed to provoke an argument, and we were quick to provide him one.


 * You say above that "sexual orientation is a perfectly normal subject which can be discussed in a sensible, mature and rational way." If you had used responded to rather than discussed then i would agree, i think what we should be looking for here is a simple, matter of fact statement supported by sources, and the discussion should be kept to a minimum.


 * However, the desk is not yet a place where a sensible, mature, and rational response can be provided to such trolling questions. None of the editors who responded brought any reliable sources to bear, none of them linked to the article content you mentioned which covers the subject, their responses were as speculative as the OP's original statement. I deleted the thread not "because we can't be bothered to provide the questioner with objective, factual information" in response to a controversial topic, but because we have so far shown ourselves as a group to be incapable of doing so.


 * The reference desk is better off w/o the thread as it was, but probably the best outcome would have been a single response in the manner you outline above&mdash;with objective, factual information&mdash;and also supported by reference to article content and/or reliable sources. Deleting the thread improved the reference desk, but restoring the (non)question and providing such a response might be better yet, or at least an experiment worth trying. If you or another editor want to try, then please do so and we'll see what happens.&mdash;eric 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But, Eric, casual RD editors never will see examples of objective, factual, sourced answers to controversial questions if you and others just delete every question that mentions sex, religion, guns, terrorism, seagulls etc etc within a few hours of posting. By being over-protective you are reinforcing the very behaviour that you dislike. Plus you are creating a never-ending treadmill for yourselves. And again you use the label "troll" - what exactly is your evidence that the questioner was trolling, rather than asking a genuine question in a badly phrased way ? I believe the term "troll" should be used sparingly and appropriately. It annoys me greatly when Hipocrite, for example, puts the label "troll" on everything and everyone he disagrees with. Gandalf61 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not tolerate this blatant attack. Gandalf, when you included seagulls among such trollish topics as "sex, religion, guns, terrorism, seagulls etc etc," I was shocked. My pet seagull is weeping in the corner. Please try to be more sensitive toward seagulls in the future. V-Man737 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are concentrating on the question, while i would rather discuss the responses. My edit summary was probably inadequate and i'll try in the future to provide something more explanatory and avoid the troll label if it focuses the discussion in the wrong direction. That aside, surely we can agree there were problems with the question beyond being "badly phrased": using the reference desk as a soapbox, seeking debate rather than information, trying to elicit a reaction from other editors. The responses to such need to be carefully crafted and avoid following the OP's lead.


 * Your point about having a good example is well taken, and i encourage you again to restore the question and provide one. We are however currently supplied with plenty of bad examples and i think it time that those who wish to see some improvement at the reference desk try and alter that ratio.&mdash;eric 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Ummit

For what it's worth, I'm one of the more anti-deletion participants in the whole RD policy debate, I've been arguing at (probably far too much) length in favor of "gentler" measures such as merely politely discouraging off-topic content, but as soon as I saw the subject line "Proof that gayness is environmental" I thought, "hoo, boy, that looks like trolling", and I very nearly deleted it myself. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, as one of the most pro-deletion participants, i hope that some day the reference desk will reach a point where we can provide an appropriate response to some of these trolling questions&mdash;but we are not there yet and i see little reason to be optimistic that we ever will be.&mdash;eric 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Eric nailed it- we could respond in a mature, encyclopedic, non-troll-feeding way. This would be best. But, that's not what happened.  We're not there yet- the talk page discussion demonstrates this very well.  I would again suggest this: some of you are making it obvious that you have no apparent experience in identifying trolling (let's focus on "trolling" as a behavior rather than on "trolls" as people- it's more accurate and useful that way.)  So, let's allow those who can identify trolling deal with it appropriately.  Friday (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday and Eric - let me ask once again - where exactly is the evidence that this questioner is a troll. And I mean real evidence that the rest of us can evaluate - if you just tell me it is your "judgement" then you are setting yourself up as the Spanish Inquisition, who were very good at finding heretics because heresy was whatever they said it was, and whoever did not agree with them was clearly a heretic anyway. And if your concern was with the responses, not with the question, then why delete the whole thread ? Deleting threads that you don't like is very easy, big blunt instrument, you don't even need to take aim - but it does absolutely nothing towards improving the quality of the RDs in the long term. Gandalf61 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget personal judgment of the questioner as "troll" or "not a troll", we don't need to go there. The topic was "proof that gayness is environmental".  This is not factual or neutral, and it was going nowhere good.  I think we're too far apart on general principles and this hasn't improved despite a month or more of discussion.  So, let's focus on what actually happens rather than on hypothetical questions.  In this case, I agree that removal of the whole thing was an improvement.  For anyone who disagrees, EricR has already said he has no objection to someone restoring the question and starting again fresh in answering it usefully.  So, what's left to argue about? Friday (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a Jeopardy! game here, we don't require that everything be phrased in the form of a question. If not stated as a question, simply make it into one.  In this case, add the line "Is this logic valid ?" at the end of the question.  We shouldn't look for ways to brand OPs as trolls, we should look for ways to assume good faith. StuRat 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, Friday and Eric, it sounds as if you looked at the question, couldn't think of a factual and objective way to answer it, and so you called it a troll. Forget WP:AGF, just hit that big red delete button as soon as you see something that you don't like ! Well, you are right about one thing, Friday - we are at opposite poles on general principles. Gandalf61 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're here to have a civilized discussion, by all means go ahead. If you're here to polarize disputes needlessly and score points against some imagined opponents, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.  Again, from Reference_desk/guidelines:  The reference desk is not a place to rehash the debate about Creation, evolution, the Apollo moon landing hoax, or any other kind of controversy. Whilst we're glad to direct you to relevant discussions – in Wikipedia and elsewhere – of theories of theology, epistemology, cosmology, or conspiracy, the reference desk is not the place where any of these are going to be resolved.  This pretty much says it all.  Friday (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, I see you are ducking the question again. My point is that people who ask controversial questions are not automatically trolls. But to answer your new point anyway - providing a brief, factual, sourced response which links to an article that answers or discusses the question (in this case, that's biology and sexual orientation) is not rehashing the debate. Read the guideline that you quoted - it says "we're glad to direct you to relevant discussions – in Wikipedia and elsewhere". It is not a mandate for deleting the whole thread just because you don't like the question. Gandalf61 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Friday seems to have decided that he should delete anything which may possibly be controversial. StuRat 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers
There's a place called Yahoo! Answers, obviously for people who don't know about Wikipedia's reference desk. - Patricknoddy 7:55am, January 14, 2007
 * Taking a look at it meself (I Googled it, XD!), it seems to be like a cross between a Yahoo chatroom (plz tell me u no wut dats l1ke!!!!11) and Wikipedia's reference desk (although much closer to the chatroom). It has much more relaxed atmosphere, in my opinion leading to much less reliable answers. According to a CNN article, "To manage any credibility gap, a Yahoo review team deletes inappropriate answers." Considering that this team doesn't delete requests for medical advice, chatrooms, and trolling, I'd say Wikipedia rawks all. V-Man737 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yahoo answers is highly unreliable. --⁪froth T 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical questions at RD: an analysis
I've done a brief analysis of the questions over the last eight days at WP:RD/S, to try to get a handle on the number of medical questions that are asked, and how many of them we should or should not be trying to tackle. I've just done RD/S, because I expect that most of the medical questions will end up there. (Though I imagine that Misc gets a few from time to time as well.)

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that of 165 questions posted on RD/S in the last eight days,
 * 160 have received answers, and only one unanswered question is more than one day old (good job, everyone!);
 * of the twenty-one questions related to medical problems and disease, at least fifteen were unambiguously not seeking medical advice, and were appropriate for us to answer; and
 * it is only in a very small number of cases (not more than 2-3% of total question traffic) where we would need to intervene.

The bad news is that there were
 * two or three questions still in a bit of a gray area as to whether it was appropriate for us to offer advice;
 * at least three questions where the poster sought specific diagnoses and medical guidance (offering specific symptoms and medical history information,, and we provided such advice; and
 * in at least two of those three cases, the poster self-identified as a minor.

The copy of the Ref Desk Science subpage I worked from is at User:TenOfAllTrades/temp3. The summary of my results (including the list of medical questions I evaluated) is at User:TenOfAllTrades/temp3/summary.

Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the analysis. I think all we can really do is be clear that medical advice isn't a "maybe we shouldn't give it" area- it's a "don't touch it with a 10 foot pole" area.   Friday (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree on all but the 3rd one. That doesn't seem like a request for medical advice at all --⁪froth T 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And my position, as always, on medical questions is that they are OK to answer so long as the answer includes advice to go get it checked out by a professional. StuRat 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's fine to discuss medical topics. There's a huge difference between that and making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment. The people who get their panties all wadded up about this aren't health care professionals and they aren't lawyers. However, they border on practicing law, which, as any non-lawyer can tell you, is illegal. -THB 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My panties are wadded up because unqualified people are offering armchair diagnoses and prescribing courses of action. There are problems on several levels, really.
 * Fully qualified doctors and lawyers are aware – or should be aware – that there are potentially serious legal and ethical consequences and complications associated with giving advice in this type of forum; thus the people perhaps most qualified to give this advice are also barred by the rules of their professions from giving it.
 * The medical questions that I've quoted above fail to give anything that even approaches a full medical history. It's dangerous for anyone to give advice to these people when we don't know the barest minimum of information about their health background.
 * Many of the people seeking medical advice are minors. Would you give medical advice to a random teen on the street?  The potential for harm to minors and the subsequent embarrassment to Wikipedia should not be discounted.
 * From a strict Wikipedia policy standpoint, we're not supposed to be giving medical or legal advice. Period.
 * If you'd like to have an opinion from a practicing lawyer, we can kick this whole question over to the Foundation and let Brad Patrick (the Foundation's lawyer) and the Wikimedia Foundation Board rule on a hard-and-fast top-down imposed-from-above policy.
 * I'd prefer, however, that we handle things here ourselves. I think it would be much better to take a mature approach and demonstrate that we can regulate ourselves here on the Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lawyers just have to add language saying "giving medical and legal advice isn't Wikipedia policy", just like Q-tips have to claim they aren't intended to be inserted into the ear, just in case some fool jams one into his brain and sues. It's quite obvious, in the case of Q-tips, what they are really for, however.  Why else would it be necessary to put a cotton ball at the end of a long stick, if not so it can be inserted into the ear ?  Nonetheless, if you were to ask their lawyers, they would surely say that they really mean you should never put the Q-tips in your ears.  Also, to answer your question about giving advice on the street to a teen, if they were clutching their side and saying they were in extreme pain, I would say "that could be appendicitis, you'd better get to a hospital right away", yes.  Would you say "I'm sorry, but I'm not qualified to give medical advice" ? StuRat 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have the legal language in the Disclaimers linked at the top of every page (your skin may vary). For example, Medical disclaimer says, in part, "None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site." Now I assume these disclaimers have been put together by qualified professionals and are sufficient to protect all concerned. Not saying we should go anywhere near giving medical or legal advice on the RDs - just saying there is some legal protection in place. Gandalf61 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat concerned that the protection offered by those disclaimers will be somewhat limited in the circumstance where we say, as StuRat suggests above, "Oh, we don't give medical advice. But here's some medical advice for you... *wink* *wink*".  In any case – and without detracting from the legal liability concern – I am perhaps most troubled that people see no problem with giving (in some cases rather poor) medical advice, often to minors, without proper medical training and without having taken any sort of medical history.
 * As I stated, I'd rather see people here approach this situation with a willingness to self-regulate and a recognition of our own limitations, but I can kick this upstairs to the Foundation if people aren't willing to stop playing doctor on their own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unhelpful content without prior discussion is generally accepted at Wikipedia
This is an issue we've had disagreement over. Here's an example edit, from an unrelated page, that illustrates this practice pretty well. If anyone's still arguing that any removals need prior discussion and approval, please understand that what you're arguing for is just not how we generally do things. This sort of thing shouldn't happen often, true, but it does happen. You're unlikely to get most editors to change their minds on this. Friday (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The RD isn't the same as article talk space, which is intended solely for article building. Not picking sides or anything, but this isn't the best argument. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that circumstances are different on different pages. However, after months of discussion, I think there are still editors here who automatically oppose any removal of content unless there's been discussion ahead of time.  I was trying to explain, again, that this is not a good position to take. Friday (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking examples, here is one I removed on sight and I did not discus it here.
 * Is it abnormal to want tro fuck jo swinson?

My attitude is why waste time discussing a no brainer deletion such as this one. Seriously would anyone here defend such a question? I would hope not. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Friday, you still don't understand. You can't just make up rules as you go along.  The Reference Desk is not an article and article rules aren't applicable. Sorry.  It's not even in article space.  You're the one who wants to change established Wikipedia practice.  You're also arguing for tradition, which is a logical fallacy.  This is precisely why it's so difficult for the deletionists--they've got some well-meaning but wrong-headed ideas stuck in their brains that they keep regurgitating, unable to see that they don't correspond with reality. -THB 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the diff I posted? Did you see that it was deletion of content from a talk page, not from an article?  The point's been made many times that in some ways, the ref desk is more like a talk page than it is like an article.  It's also different in some ways.  My point is that editors do sometimes just delete off-topic or otherwise unhelpful content, and no prior approval is needed.  I don't see where this statement is at odds with reality.  Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stock templates for dubious topics?
I'm sure this has been brought up before, so apologies for rehashing it if it's been determined to be a lousy idea, but what if we had a nice set of stock templates to all-but-close-off discussion of contentious, disruptive, dubious, or nonproductive topics? (This would be an alternative, of course, to outright deleting them.) I'm thinking of something like the following:















[I reserve the right to delete the words "The Reference Desk is not a chat room" from the fifth one, because those words usually rub me the wrong way, but they seemed to fit here.]

—Steve Summit (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. I've seen editors use templates to "archive" section of pages before to discourage further discussion- that's pretty similar.  If use of such templtes is more acceptable than outright removal (or moving to talk page) of the offending section, let's do it.  Friday (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Geesh, anyone remember when the RD was... nevermind. --hydnjo talk 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...when the RD was a smaller, simpler, less formal place? Yeah.  And I feel distinctly weird being the one to propose these official-looking templates, let me tell you.  I may yet vote against my own suggestion, but the time seemed right to at least discuss them. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me - better than deletion. Could maybe include a sig field to show who added the template ? Gandalf61 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The medical and legal ones look clearly warranted and perhaps should be changed so the div includes the question (so it looks "closed"). I'm less thrilled with the others.  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned about the 'trolling' one. If a question has been posed by a genuine troll, then we've just opened the door for arguments and grandstanding; if a question is just poorly-worded, then we've pissed off someone who asked a good-faith question.  The others – particularly the legal and medical advice ones – are great. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rick per encapsulating defunct questions, and with Ten per "troll label" concern - The templates look awesome and will be very useful, and because of this styled look, we need to be extra careful to point attention to properties of the RefDesk, rather than reflect on the character of the OG OP. I suggest that if a question is blatantly trollish, we silently remove it rather than bring attention to it. If there is some question as to whether or not it is trollish, we should discuss it here and come to a consensus about it. WP:TROLL makes it pretty clear that trolls love attention and noise, so in either case we should deal with a question, not a troll. V-Man737 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above regarding medical and legal issues. I quite like the opinion, contentious topic and debate one too. Have concerns with the trolling and homework ones though, as I think there is a real chance these could be used inappropriately. Rockpock  e  t  05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For the homework template, I would rewrite it as follows:



For the trolling template, what evidence could possibly be provided to "prove sincerity" ? StuRat 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The contentious topic and debate templates appear to just be ways to prohibit opinions, original research, and unsourced facts, which we've already decided are permissible on the Ref Desk. StuRat 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stu, none of these templates prohibit anything.
 * We've agreed that opinions, original research, and unsourced facts are permissible in moderation and under certain circumstances. The question is, if some day an editor comes to feel that a thread has become too opinionated or too unsourced or is delving into too much original research, what should he do?  Delete the thread?  Inject a "polite reminder" (which someone with a hairtrigger temper might interpret as an insult)?  Or use a handy template, that everyone understands and agrees on the meaning of?
 * I'm not lobbying for these templates or asserting that they're the solution to all our problems, but they're certainly one possibility. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the improvement of the homework template. However, I would argue the contentious topic and debate templates would encourage editors to avoid debates and opining on contentious topics (the clue, I feel, is in the wording). Rockpock  e  t  06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question: Will the "troll" template be later used as evidence in figuring out whether someone is a troll? For example, a user posts a potentially trollish question, and someone marks it with the template. Later on in Wikipedia annals, someone accuses this user of being a troll. They look through the user's contributions list and find that a question they had was called trollish. They link to it while discussing with an admin, who then decides that the person is a troll. Am I making sense? Eurgh, Martin Luther King Day of Service is taking its toll... V-Man737 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh pretty. First thing I notice is that the trolling template has problems- trollish questions can still be answered well without feeding the possible troll and without offending the person if it's a serious question. Also I'd link to to the "don't feed the troll" article so people know what it means. Also, I support discussion and debate and don't like that it's being tagged as something bad. A lot of very good answers can come out of a debate, and in some cases when it's not a black-and-white issue OPs can get a much better answer by looking at multiple sides of the argument. --⁪froth T 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. StuRat 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest removing the qualification "potentially serious" from the medical and legal advice templates. It makes it sound like we are happy to give advice about non-serious medical or legal problems, which we are not. Neither we nor the OP are necessarily qualified to judge what is or isn't "potentially serious". We should not give medical or legal advice, period. --mglg(talk) 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strict, uncompromising statements can get people's backs up and end up causing more problems than they solve. I tried to keep all of those templates somewhat friendly in tone, in the hope that they might be more widely acceptable.
 * The wording is intended to allow, for example, discussion of medical conditions in the abstract. It does not give anyone carte blanche to ask questions which we're uncomfortable answering.  If a condition is potentially serious, it's potentially serious, and anyone who's worried about discussing it would be free to use the template. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be able to discuss medical conditions in the abstract, whether or not they are serious, and we should not give medical advice about any condition whether or not it is serious. Seriousness is not the criterion. I agree that discussing obviously minor complaints is a minor offense, but designing a template in a way that makes it look like official Wikipedia policy considers it OK to give medical advice about non-serious conditions could open us up to legal liability (and hurt users, if it wasn't all that non-serious after all). Dispensing medical or legal advice without a license is a crime in many jurisdictions. (Of course, nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice... ;-)) By the way, don't get me wrong - I really like the template idea. Templates (small, unobtrusive ones) carry the appropriate flavor of official policy to give readers and responders the right idea. But that apparent officialdom is precisely why we need to make sure they don't misrepresent our policy. --mglg(talk) 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of these templates look good... but the trolling template is madness. Clear trolling should be removed, not tagged&mdash;and if something is not clear trolling, we should assume good faith. -- SCZenz 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do we tell the difference? Can you?--Light current 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I use my judgement. Your assertion that there's no such thing is a rather tired refrain at this point. -- SCZenz 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is your judgement superior to anyone elses?--Light current 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

next steps?
I was about to wonder how we might go about deciding whether we wanted to make these templates "official" (whatever that means :-) ), and who should be in charge of responding to all the comments so far and making appropriate adjustments to the draft templates. (I wasn't too excited about doing either of these things, and I was thinking of disclaiming all ownership over the draft templates and inviting someone else to pick up and run with them for the next step.)  But I see -- I'm not sure whether to be flattered or alarmed over this -- that people are already starting to use them!  (In a cut-and-paste way.)  If this indicates that they're already considered acceptable by some, and if these early uses are mostly appropriate (as opposed to, say, people making WP:POINTs), perhaps the time to make real templates out of them is: already!  (If nobody has serious reservations, and if nobody else beats me to it, I may just do this tomorrow night. All but the trolling one, of course.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do it. You're the man now, dog! V-Man737 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the draft templates are acceptable and I think they should be turned into real templates. I also think editors should be encouraged to use them in almost all circumstances where we are currently seeing questions being deleted. A few other comments:
 * I agree with dropping the "trolling" template. The "contentious" or "opinions" templates can be used instead, even if we are convinced a question is trolling.
 * I still think a sig field would be useful. After all, the template is a type of response, so it should be signed/dated like other responses.
 * Could add a template for "meta questions" about Wikipedia policy or how to use Wikipedia, for example, to point the questioner to Help Desk or Village Pump.
 * Gandalf61 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will disagree with the use of these templates. Being a new contributor to the RD, I was unaware of why they were getting placed, and a little put off that most of them aren't signed. But mostly, I think It would be better for an editor to comment on a discussion than to place a rather ham-fisted template to make his point. --Measure 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These templates are problematic (see section below, for example). I do not think they should be made "official" until there's more consensus on how to use them, and the problems have settled down. People signing and explaining their template additions on the talk page when things aren't blindingly obvious, in particular, would be helpful. -- SCZenz 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Specifically, they make it look like the community has decided, based on consensus, that the question is what the template says it is.  This is not true, it's just one person's opinion, and should neither appear to, or actually, carry any more weight than a regular comment. StuRat 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

216.164.199.241 and 193.3 - Removal of questions
I have removed one question from 216.164.199.241 and/or 193.3 and am about to remove another couple. I don't think we need to tolerate this sort of homophobia. You're free to disagree & reinstate them. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Please provide us with a link or at least tell us which desk. StuRat 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Plenty of action on Misc RD - our anon editor had lots of edit wars fun last night. In case anyone is interested, my views are:
 * Legality of sexual acts - an odd question on a controversial topic, but approriately and factually answered by Ny156uk. Should not have been deleted.
 * U.S. Political Parties - yes, an overtly homophobic question, deservedly deleted.
 * Wikipedia's strong libertarian bias - could have been simply and factually answered with pointers to WP policies and our article on libertarianism. Should not have been deleted.
 * I don't see how the repeated deletion of questions 1 and 3 improves the RD. It just makes us look like a bunch of up-tight hall monitors. Now that the anon editor has found out how easy it is to provoke a reaction on the RDs, I expect he will return for more fun next time he is bored. Gandalf61 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, I oppose such removals until a consensus is reached here. StuRat 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and look, he's back again with Questions 2 and 3. Remind me - what exactly did all those deletions achieve ? Gandalf61 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and now I think he's back again on Misc RD, having fun playing with Friday. All this just shows that deletion is not a satisfactory way to handle problem editors on the RDs. Gandalf61 21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever has a better way is certainly welcome to do it. We have no magic bullet- we can't make problem editors go away.  All we can do is try to reduce the harm they cause.  Friday (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, here is my recipe for a "better way" to answer a dubious or controversial question:
 * Provide a brief, factual answer with links.
 * Do not be sarcastic. Do not ask rhetorical questions. Do not try to score points off the questioner.
 * Do not call the questioner names like "troll" or "vandal", even in edit summaries or hidden comments.
 * Do not get drawn into a debate.
 * Basically, it's all about treating people with respect. If the questioner is genuine, then they are not offended, and maybe they learn something. If they are not genuine, then they failed to get a rise out of us. This approach may not be as easy or instantly gratifying as just deleting the question, but it is a better strategy in the long run. Gandalf61 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, Gandalf. StuRat 07:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion
For 'contentious' questions what would people think of placing the answer(s) on the users' own talk page and just a link to that below the question on the RD? If the original question was meant sincerely then the person gets their answer. People could still click the link if they were interested in the answer or wanted to follow up. However, since it is on a user talk page, rather than the high traffic RD, long 'chat sessions' and arguments are discouraged or appear on a page where they don't 'crowd out' the normal function of answering questions. Arguably this could be done for all RD questions, but placing both the answers and links is two edits in place of one and thus probably best reserved for the subset which are currently causing disagreement and disruption. Thoughts? --CBD 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not discuss 'contentious' on this page. Please go to WP:Is this a contentious question and vote as to whether this is a contentious question or not. After the appropriate voting period a decision will be announced as to whether this question is 'contentious' or not. An appeal process is being devised so that... Geesh, Sorry CBD but I think that we need less structure, not more. hydnjo talk 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... I wouldn't really consider this 'more structure'. It's just a matter of responding on a different page... as opposed to the current 'process' of edit-warring back and forth and calling each other names. Or the other proposal above of developing a whole series of 'stop talking' templates for each possible situation - which people can then edit-war back and forth and call each other names over the use of. :] --CBD 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When has edit-warring been a problem? It seems to me that we've all been pretty good about avoiding that and are quick to bring issues to the talk page for discussion. If you are referring to the 216.164.x.x episode, three different editors reverting an addition should probably be called a good application of common sense rather than an edit war.&mdash;eric 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one replaced them, it doesn't qualify as an edit war, by definition. However, one problem is when someone deletes a non-trolling question by someone who may have trolled in the past.  The deletionists who do that are no better than vandals. -THB 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THB, just so that I can understand, could you point to an example or two of that particular "one problem": deletion of a non-trolling question because the questioner may have trolled in the past? Thanks, --hydnjo talk 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Eek, you don't want an RFC do you? But yeah, disagreement over what material qualifies as a legit question is the problem here, this solution won't help --⁪froth T 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, they have been replaced half a dozen times and then removed again. That's an edit war. --CBD 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly THB has issues today. As well as last week. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's a sycophant (as in "administrators & their sycophants")? Thanks, --hydnjo talk 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its an unwell elephant of course! 8-)--Light current 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's when you use nine colons just to indent your message to make it look relevant. sycophant!!!!11eleven111 V-Man737 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'scuse me V-Man but I've now used ten colons to properly indent this response and you've used nine colons. So, WTF does that have to do with the question at hand or are you just trying to pull my chain. Also, I have no clue as what you're trying to convey by "11eleven111" ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was my prophetic foresight indicating that I was going to next use eleven colons in my indentations! Okay, actually my sycophants told me. V-Man737 04:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'scuse me again V-Man, I forgot, to ask, does the number of indenting colons have something to do with the degree of sycophancy or did you just make that up so as to appear more clever? --hydnjo talk 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * appear clever?? Baby, I am clever! And yes, thanks to this thread, I am now a thirteenth-degree sycophant. Consider your chain thoroughly pulled. ^_^ V-Man737 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you're still confused, I'm referring to your comment at WP:RD/M: "There are administrators (and their sycophants) advocating for unilateral control over content on the reference desk. -THB 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)" I remain confused about your problem as I know of no contributor (administrator or "sycophant", whatever that means) that is advocating for "unilateral control over content on the reference desk". As confused as I may be, I still have no clue as to WTF you're talking about. Please explain your comment so that I may go forward from here without fear of being tarred with some label with which you are quite comfortable pigeon-holing me into "baby" your "Cleverness". --hydnjo talk 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there are certain kinds of questions we discourage on the Reference Desks, and assuming also that we discourage anyone from answering them on the Reference Desks, I'd say that in at least some cases, when an editor really wants to answer the "questionable" question anyway, doing it on the asker's talk page would be an excellent idea. (If nothing else, it's a great "safety valve" for anyone who feels that the Reference Desk guidelines are too oppressive.) Good suggestion, CBD. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that this would be good motivation for anons to register so that they'll have their own user page (as opposed to sharing one with whoever else uses that IP address). V-Man737 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that any solution will only work if everyone agrees to follow it. The 'tagging' solution above would work great... if people were willing to accept the judgement of others as to when a conversation should stop. Given that the recent questions about homosexuality have been reverted back and forth half a dozen times I'm not sure that would happen. I suggested this 'respond on user talk pages' idea as a sort of compromise... those who worry that removing questions unanswered may 'bite' some well-intentioned users would get answers for those questions... and those who think that 'silly' questions turn into long chat fests/joking around or other 'disruption' would be able to move that off the reference desk to a page where it is less likely to happen and shouldn't cause problems even if it did. Lack of attention should discourage 'trolls' and prevent fights over who is or is not a 'troll'. On the 'down' side it would leave the 'potentially improper' questions themselves (not answers) on the RD and potentially suggest that some questions are taken more seriously than others... however, I think both of those things are issues currently too. This doesn't give 'either side' exactly what they want, but I think it would be an improvement if everyone were willing to abide by it. --CBD 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a side question, do we take some questions more seriously than others? Sub: should we take some questions more seriously than others? Subsub: what is meant by seriously? V-Man737 11:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with medical questions
Okay, I'm pulling this off into a new section, because the other parts of this discussion are starting to get really long.

To summarize:
 * Wikipedia's medical disclaimer specifically states that "Wikipedia is not a doctor", and that nothing we do "...should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine."
 * Most people 'get' that Wikipedia's Ref Desk isn't a good forum for seeking diagnoses and other advice about their medical conditions. We only get three or four questions per week of this type.  See the summary and analysis at User:TenOfAllTrades/temp3/summary.
 * Unfortunately, there are still people who don't read the instructions (or ask anyway), an appreciable fraction of whom are minors. The exact fraction is unknown due to the small sample size in my recent analysis, and because not all posters provided their ages.
 * Several of the problems associated with offering medical advice here are described further up the page, in.
 * There is a subset of the people who answer questions on the Ref Desk who believe that we should offer direct medical advice. Some of these people are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy.  Others believe that the Wikipedia disclaimers protect them and Wikipedia from legal liability, and that they should therefore feel free to offer medical advice.

As I see it, then, there are three distinct groups of people we need to be able to handle when a medical question crops up. I've sketched out my view of how we ought to respond to these three groups below. I ultimately see this as becoming, perhaps, an ancillary guideline to the 'How to ask and answer'. There is space for comment and discussion at the bottom.

Responding to a person who posts a question seeking medical advice.
 * Verify that the question does indeed seek medical advice. Typically a poster will ask about one or more symptoms, and solicit an opinion about diagnosis (What is this?), prognosis (Should I be worried about this?), or courses of action (What should I do about this?).  The symptoms will be those of the poster, or ascribed to a friend or relative.  Note that questions may be on a medical topic ('What is sleep apnea?', for example) without necessarily seeking medical advice.
 * Politely explain to the poster that we cannot offer medical advice. This may be accomplished using a suitable template, or a personalized message.  Encourage the poster to direct their medical questions to their physician, pharmacist, parents, or guardian.
 * Where appropriate, offer links to suitable resources. This may include internal wikilinks and external websites.  Be extremely careful not to offer a diagnosis in this way.  If the poster has identified their place of residence, contact information for local health professionals or hotlines may be provided.

Dealing with novice responders who offer medical advice.
 * Verify that the responder's answer has indeed offered medical advice: a diagnosis ('You might have X; that sounds like an X'), prognosis ('That's nothing to worry about'), or course of action ('You should lance that with an X').
 * Politely explain to the responder that we cannot offer medical advice. Thank them for their efforts.  Clearly indicate what part of their remarks constituted medical advice.  Direct them to these guidelines, or explain to them directly how to handle medical questions in the future.
 * Remove the medical advice.

Dealing with seasoned responders who persist in offering medical advice after repeated correction.
 * Verify carefully in each and every instance that medical advice was delivered. There's no need to give the impression of hassling someone.  (Responders, meanwhile, are encouraged to be very careful in handling medical questions if they've been cautioned about giving medical advice more than once.
 * Politely remind the responder that we cannot offer medical advice on Wikipedia, and remind the responder that there are appropriate venues elsewhere on the web.
 * Remove the medical advice.
 * Provide on this page (or in another appropriate venue) the specific medical advice which was offered.
 * Seek the intervention of an administrator if the problem persists.

In general.
 * If a question arises as to whether or not medical advice was sought or given, any party (poster or responder) may post the material in question on this talk page for review and discussion.
 * Responses will be replaced if a consensus that they do not constitute advice is arrived at. Responders are strongly encouraged during this process to suggest ways to rephrase answers (their own or others') which can be restated to present useful information without offering a diagnosis or other medical advice.

Comments on dealing with medical questions
Please comment away down here on the proposed guidelines I've hacked together immediately above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THe above seems quite prescriptive. Is all that going into the guidelines.?--Light current 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as any more prescriptive than "we don't do medical or legal advice" which has been accepted for years, I think. It's just a more specific description of how to handle it when people DO ask for (or worse yet, give) these kinds of advice.  If we all behave reasonably, there won't be much need for some of what's there.  Surely nobody is arguing that we should give medical advice after all?  Friday (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it as more of a detailed sub-guideline to be referred to when this particular problem arises. I don't think such detailed process on such a narrow point needs to be in the main guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What about licensed professionals trying to help? X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked plenty of questions at #science that would be called medical advice questions, while I just want to know more things. Each time I've already decided if I was going to a doctor or not (actually after more information was given, one time I went to a doctor). I don't want to have to go to the desk and say: "I have a black circular spot about 2 mm2 on my halluxnail that has been there for a week," with the only response being "go see a doctor." Because I'm not going to talk to a doctor about it. It is too much of a hassle, it costs too much money, and it doesn't hurt. If they answer with some external links concerning what it is and treatment how much is that different than citing references? Although you may have good intentions I see it as censorship to keep a knowledge-seeker safe, and without any data to back a reason up. We have a plethora of articles on thermonuclear weapon design—just take a look at Teller-Ulam design. Would you like to know the history, materials, production, schematics, technical books, pdfs, how to get them, where to get them, of one single boosted nuclear fission bomb? Would you like highly detailed instructions on the chemical synthesis of trinitrotoluene? Martial arts moves? Sexual techniques? Wikipedia has it all, including medical information. This is what we do, this is how I see it. <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question, licensed professionals are discussed further up the page, in the section . They're bound by their professional codes of conduct not to practice medicine in this way (the linked article is a good treatment of the topic), and they risk both personal liability and professional censure if they do it anyway.


 * On the second part of your comment, there is a distinction between providing a source of information about medicine (or disease, or medical therapies, or – for that matter – nuclear weapons design) and providing specific counselling and medical guidance to individuals seeking medical help. We can discuss medicine, we can't practice it. I'm not sure how best to make that distinction clear; with any luck the examples in the guideline above will be helpful.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am confused at being of a clear definition of the distinction. Because I feel like someone could say "what if—" and it would be more a curiosity, and I could say "I have—" and it would be practicing medicine. Is the idea that we can answer the first one but on the second? If we send them to the article, that is clearly not practicing, however if we replied with information from the article, and a link to it, that seems like "practicing medicine." Do I understand you and you understand me correctly? If so, is it that it has to do with the directness? Clearly, from the things we see on the desk, not everybody will research their malignancy on their own. <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mac, will the hazards of answering these questions be clearer if I tell you that a 2 mm black spot on your big toenail is probably a stray spot of your black nail polish, while a 2 mm spot under the nail might be either a small hematoma or a small melanoma? If it's a hematoma, it will be gone in a couple of months; if a melanoma, you might be gone in a few months. alteripse 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I should get a response with that information in it, at least, since I am a person on the internet that doesn't care to research anything myself and will wait long time before I visit the doctor unless it might be something that won't take care of itself. <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly - that is a good example of the difference between discussing medical stuff (the fact that medical information even exists in Wikipedia) and practicing medicine. The information Alteripse shelled out is quite appropriate for such a situation; saying "you should probably excise the spot" or some similar advice other than "see your doctor" would be inappropriate practicing. Hence the fine line of balance, and hence the rigorous discussion! V-Man737 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, we shouldn't dismiss a potentially serious problem, we should do whatever it takes to convince the OP they need to see a professional. This can best be accomplished by listing all possible causes, including the worst possible scenario, for each set of symptoms.  Only if we listed one specific cause, and said that's definitely what they have, would it be a medical diagnosis. StuRat 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My biggest disagreement on Ten's policy is that it contains the same logic we've seen before, that any one user may unilaterally delete anything that they consider to be medical advice, while nobody is allowed to replace it, without a consensus. As with every other deletion, a consensus should be gained before the removal occurs. Anyone failing to gain a consensus should expect to have their unilateral deletion undone. StuRat 07:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's just like WP:1RR and WP:3RR. It might not seem right that someone can remove your edit and then you have to try to get concensus before restoring it, but experience across the project has shown this leads to fewer problems than simply reverting a change. And if you bring things here, maybe you'll garner more sympathy for your actions :-) Skittle 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the current policy lacks a firm definition of what medical advice is (to see how problematic this can be, scroll down). It is crticial that we should reach a consensus on defining medical advice. Users wishing to patrol the RD for medical advice questions will need to be familiar with what medical advice really is (through clear guidlines, to which I would be glad to contribute) and avoid all the hassle of having to debate every possible medical advice deletion. They key is simply agreeing on what medical advice is. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour  t  12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Project page vs Project talk page
The response by THB at WP:RD/M: "... Chalk another one up for the deletionists. The discussion on the deletion was particularly inane. -THB" perhaps belongs on this talk page but certainly not on the project page. Are we so damn intent on slamming the "other side" that we can't even discriminate about simple things such as proper placement of talk page commentary? That kind of comment has no place at the RD as it seems to drag the OP into talk page discussion which even here seems dubious. THB, are you now expecting to place some blame on all of the RD responders for some AfD decision at some previous time with which you didn't agree? Are you so polarized that you need to blame those "deletionists" for all that goes against your way? Am I or others here to feel some blame for an article that was deleted the discussion about which you now deem "particularly inane"? An AfD decision about which some of us had no knowledge of or participation in? Am I in particular, having been branded a "deletionist" by StuRat (with which I disagree), to feel some guilt that you weren't able to find some article that has been deleted? I guess that that's the problem with putting contributors into your ill-advised name buckets. Please refrain from doing so again and keep talk page commentary on the talk page. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That comment of THB's doesn't look too bad to me. If Wikipedia once had an article on a topic which has come up on the Reference Desk more than once, but if that article doesn't now exist, that's legitimate cause for frustration (and especially given our recent push to try to cite appropriate articles in Reference Desk answers). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *Sorry to disagree with you Steve but the comment is out of place on the RD. Perhaps you didn't understand, I have no objection to such a comment (as much as I disagree with it) being posted on this talk page, my disagreement has to do with such commentary being posted on our project page and I stand firm on that position. --hydnjo talk 03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is a place to answer questions, not a place to discuss how those questions are dealt with. The latter purpose is what the talk page is for.  Personal attacks and rude labelling makes the situation worse. -- SCZenz 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand that; my point was just that, all things considered, that particular comment of THB's didn't look, to me, off-topic or offensive enough to raise a stink over. As someone else was just saying somewhere else on this page, pick your battles. :-) Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know a lot about picking my battles. I also know that sometimes it's best to draw a line in the sand. -- SCZenz 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I know how you guys feel...
Whether intentional or not, this fine fellow at the Misc. Desk has even managed to offend me...


 * I don't understand why anybody supports animal rights. Could somebody provide a list of the main reasons supporters use? Thanks.--216.164.249.7 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that if this guy is a troll, he's very good. Vranak


 * You knew you were being trolled. I knew you were being trolled. There was a template alerting you that you were being trolled, but you still responded. Why? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that simply responding is a problem, but responding by taking the bait and rehashing the debate is a problem. Everyone, please understand you're undermining our goals here if one of us says "We won't rehash this debate here" and then others jump in and start rehashing the debate.  Friday (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday is correct, in that I found his responses, and those of Mothperson to be appropriately dismissive of a questioner trying to get in a fight. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hip, quite frankly I find your attitude to be far more objectionable than any troll I've ever seen. Vranak


 * OOPs be careful of nicknames-- could get you blocked! 8-(


 * I actually think its a fair Q. What are the arguments in favor and against? Please dont say Im trolling Im getting bored with that accusation. try to think of a real answer for once.--Light current 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a fair question. It's the ideology behind the question that rubs me the wrong way. It not only assumes that humans to have the moral right to abuse animals, but that those who think differently must be crackpots. Vranak


 * Depends what you mean by 'abuse'. How about eating em? 8-|--Light current 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because we're superior :) But I too think this is a perfectly fair question, if you're in favor of animal rights, give some arguments in favor, don't get miffled. --⁪froth T 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it's a bad question. It's that no useful progress can be made on this question in this forum, and in fact we don't even want to try. This is why we do not rehash the debates on controversial topics, here at the ref desk. Instead, we can point questioners to encyclopedia articles which try to cover the subject matter neutrally. Having controversial debates here is trouble we don't need. Friday (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I remind everyone starting threads like these ones to post links or diffs so that those of us who come to the discussion late can know where to look to be outraged? TIA. Anchoress 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can remind us, but it won't help :-) Here ya go: Reference_desk/Miscellaneous.  Friday (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The question may well have been posed for the purpose of drawing a reaction, but strip all inference off it and you are left with:


 * a very simple statement explaining why the OP is posing a question.
 * a question.


 * Its not that difficult to neutrally point the OP towards the resources where he can find the answer to his question without offering any trollfood. Where is the problem? Rockpock  e  t  04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not much of a problem. Providing those resources is what we should do- engaging in debate on this topic isn't what we should do.  Friday (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people can't control themselves, and need someone to stop them. It's Broken Windows in the virual world. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The problem lies in (some of) the responses to the question, not the question itself. If you infer a question to be personally offensive, the very worst thing you can do is respond (because neutrality and objectivity becomes near impossible). Rockpock  e  t  18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * I don't see any problem whatsoever with that question being asked.
 * Hipocrite, those are hilarious. Seriously, they really are.
 * When somebody asks a question or disagrees or hasn't made up their mind about something YOU think his morally and ethically constituted, people can't control themselves very well. <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting analogy. Hipocrite, have you considered that maybe - just maybe - deleting questions and responses that you don't like from the RDs and calling people trolls and vandals does more harm to Wikipedia than a few meandering discussions on the RDs ever could ? In other words, although you intend to fix the windows, could it be that you are actually breaking them ? Gandalf61 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Users of the encyclopedia do not read talk pages. Broken windows on the inside of your house do encourage insiders to break more internal windows, and that is bad. They do, however, keep window breakers from breaking windows outside of the house, because they are busy doing something else. I suggest you review my actual actions, as opposed to your perception of my actions when determining that I am a monster and calling "people" "trolls" and "vandals." Provide diffs that show me calling someone who is not a vandal a vandal - someone who is not a troll a troll. I also see no problem with the question that was asked (I certainly would have given Friday/Rocket's response to it). I see problem with chit-chatters chit-chatting with the asker. If he *IS* a troll (probable), then he's now gotten you all hooked. If he's *NOT* a troll, you are disrupting his question. Which would you prefer? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 15:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pay him no mind, he's being a hypocrite. ;-) That article on broken windows was very interesting, I'd never heard of that before. V-Man737 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might think you are being pithy, but you are not. Humor does not translate on the internet. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Good point. I shall attempt another language. (After all, "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.") V-Man737 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Question deleted some editors were using the question as a vehicle for making a point and in doing so completely ignoring the foundation's non-negotiable NPOV policy and Wikipedia's core verifiability policy.&mdash;eric 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. V-Man737 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If some of the responses are inappropriate, then garner a consensus for deletion here, before deleting those particular responses. There is no justification for deleting the answers which are appropriate, however.  "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." StuRat 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to reach a consensus, the question remains up on the RD for 24hrs. If there is consensus to delete after that time then the the debate or crude jokes will have already occurred. The point of the deletion would have been to prevent those responses. In fact, the reason Steve Summit proposed the templates was to achieve this goal without deleting the question. Why is it preferable to have the questions remain on the board while consensus is reached rather than being hidden for 24hrs until consenus is reached? It would be easy to leave the header text and a link to the talk page for discussion. I know you would rarely delete a question, but there should be a process for those that do want to challenge a question.  Very few questions, as a percentage, are challenged so I don't see the problem here. David D. (Talk) 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does rather serious damage to remove it from the Ref Desk for 24 hours. The OP is likely to be so pissed that they leave Wikipedia forever, as seems to be the exact case with the "animal rights" question on the Ref Desk now.  Now let me ask the reverse, what damage does it do to leave it on the Ref Desk ?  Would people have quit in disgust because there was a discussion of animal rights on the Ref Desk ?  That hardly seems likely. StuRat 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No damage, if you ignore it. But, when was the last time every one restrained themselves and avoided the tempatation of throwing in their own original research and opinion? Not to mention the above user was a repeat offender. Replying to such offenders on the ref desk will just encourage them. StuRat, you seem to think this policy will lead to rampant deletion, that is a fallacy and scaremongering on your behalf, we are talking about a small number of questions. With respect to scaring away the OP's how is that possible if they are apporached on their talk page?  In fact, it may cause them to stay since they are treated as an individual. i suspect you can only see deletion as a beligerant action.  It does not have to be that way. David D. (Talk) 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You think they will actually appreciate having their posts deleted, so that nobody can now answer unless they happen upon the user's talk page ? StuRat 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question by Garb Wire about Ref Desk policies moved here from RD Humanities
I moved the following metadiscussion here: Edison 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an interesting question. There are 2 things: There was a question earlier on the wikipedia site which was using wikipedia as a source to hunt for call girls. The question was given responses to a significant extent. On the contrary, there were other questions on the wikipedia reference desk with comments posted by users trying to ridicule the western culture and ways of life.

The question is that : the latter questions were all deleted within a few days of posting but the former one was responded with effective answers. Why was freedom of expression being curtailed. Why is there such double standards? Garb wire 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Garb Wire, I'm afraid you are in the wrong place. Questions about Wikipedia's policies or complaints about the actions of Wikipedia editors should be posted on Village pump. The Reference Desks are intended to be used for general knowledge questions. Gandalf61 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on Garb Wire's talk page so that he knows his question has been moved here, and has not just been deleted. (I see now you left a note on the RD page as well). Gandalf61 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rv onRD/M
Forgive my lack of insight, but I'm not seeing much WP:POINT between the reversions that are occurring in Misc. Enlighten me! V-Man737 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THB is removing the templates. If s/he does not agree with them why didn't s/he discuss it above? If s/he thinks there is no consensus s/he should explain it above. David D. (Talk) 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And what evidence do you have that there was a consensus ? StuRat 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey StuRat, you can't have it both ways? Are you defending deletions from the ref desk or only some deletions?  If you defend this deletion by THB then why can't others delete stuff which has nothing to to with the question? David D. (Talk) 07:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not supporting the template deletion, just asking what evidence you have that there was a consensus. As always, I would have added a statement afterwards challenging the template usage, something along the order of "the previous template is only the opinion of one individual, while I, and possibly others, disagree". StuRat 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I am labelled a deletionist
Here are three examples of text i have deleted from reference desk. This makes me a deletionist to a subset of editors in wikipedia. I am requesting anyone here to justify why such material should remain on the ref desk?

The first example is clearly contentious since decided that the following dirty laundary should be replaced onto the ref desk. Are we now endorsing that the reference desk is a place to air our grievances?

What productive answers could possibly come from the following question, other than to feed a troll, or spin into crude joke stream?

What productive answers could possibly come from the following question, other than to feed a troll, or spin into debate on racism?

All three of these are examples of why some kind of deletion policy needs to be in place for the ref desk to be more productive. As we have seen, in the example of successful trolling below, dubious question are not, and apparently cannot, be ignored by editors who contribute to the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The third example could be easily salvaged by interpretting the question as "What are the stated goals of the UK's new immigration policy ?", and answering accordingly. Just ignore the rest.  Had you brought it up here for a consensus vote, I'm confidant that such a suggestion would have been made.  This is why unilateral deletions are a bad idea, you don't get the benefit of anybody else's views. StuRat 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no reason to leave the rant on the ref desk to spin out of control into a debate on racism. In fact i did ask for it to be reworded, however, it never came back. It is not our job to reword such trollish questions. David D. (Talk) 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is, according to WP:AGF. That is, if a question can be interpreted either as trolling or as a serious question, we should AGF that it is indeed a serious question, and interpret it as such.  For example, if we had a question "Is Bush retarded ?", we could interpret this as "What is Bush's IQ ?" and give the best answers we could find.  But, to answer your original qquestion, yours was a deletionist action: deleting, without consensus, that which you believe may be inappropriate.  An inclusionist would have looked for a way to interpret the question so that it could be answered without "degenerating into a racist discussion", as you put it. StuRat 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't an inclusionist remove it and ask the OP to reword the question in a way that will not disrupt the RD? If your reasoned answer was the only answer that was given then i agree you plan might work. However, as we have seen so often, the trollish questions attract the most replies, many off topic and this is exactly what the OP's hope for.  Any reasonable poster would be happy to reword the question, they would not be driven away or offended. And the troll is subverted.  People that can't resist replying to trollish questions will have more time since they will not be tempted to argue about the question or debate the OP. I don't see a down side for wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because deleting things without consensus is contrary to the inclusionist philosophy, of course, and right in line with the deletionist philosophy. StuRat 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should buy into these philosophies so whole heartedly and rather look at indivdual cases. How is it offensive to remove a question and consult the original OP asking for the question to be rephrased. I understand just deleting it and ignoring the OP could cause offense but if one contacts the OP I see no problem at all. David D. (Talk) 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you asked why you were called a deletionist, and this "delete first and ask questions later" attitude is exactly why. Even if you think your deletion was right, you must be able to see that there was another way.  Those who delete things, without consensus, when not absolutely necessary, are deletionists.  That's exactly what you did, so you're a deletionist.  Case closed.  StuRat 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all for assuming good faith, but we must use common sense too. A question labeled "Is Bush retarded?" is pretty obviously meant to be inflammatory and should be treated as such.  (An appropriate response, IMO, is to leave the questioner a note on their talk page saying "This question looks like it's meant to be demeaning and/or stir up an argument.  This isn't what the ref desk is for.  If you're serious, please ask your question in a less inflammatory way.") Anything can be reinterpreted if we try hard enough.  There's already consensus that we should not feed the trolls- we really don't need to re-decide this every time it comes up.  StuRat, when you say "without consensus" I think you really mean "without a prior discussion".  These aren't really the same thing. Friday (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If something hasn't been discussed, then there obviously hasn't been a consensus formed. StuRat 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * David - agreed that none of your examples add much value to the RDs. And certain specific types of posts should be deleted from the RDs - TenOfAllTrades gave a short list somewhere, which I agreed with. But I believe that deleting "dubious" material from the RDs, as in your 3 examples, causes the following problems:


 * It provokes experienced editors into edit wars (it shouldn't do, but we are all human).


 * It confuses inexperienced but genuine editors, who wonder what has happened to their question or response.


 * It gives real trolls the attention that they are seeking, and an excuse to repost the question or come back with "why are you censoring me ?".


 * It does not give other RD editors good examples of how dubious questions should be handled.


 * In short, deletion perpetuates and reinforces problem behaviours, instead of addressing them. So, what are the alternatives ?


 * Your first example is off-topic but fairly harmless - a note on the editors' talk pages could politely ask them to take this discussion elsewhere.


 * Your second example is odd but not especially offensive - a brief response or template saying that this is not the sort of question that the RDs can answer would suffice.


 * Your third example is jumbled and potentially contentious - a brief factual answer referring the questioner to our excellent articles on racism, Westernization and immigration would be a suitable response.


 * These alternative strategies take more effort and thought than just deleting the dubious material, but I believe they will save time and effort in the long run. Gandalf61 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is readily apparent that solutions which require responders to give factual answers to questions that beg them to get in a debate is unlikely to work. Do you have a solution to the problem of responders constantly taking the bait? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 11:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do - lead by example. Don't just tell editors what to do and not to do - show them good examples of how to respond factually and objectively to contentious questions. But if some editors don't follow our lead, it doesn't matter too much - we don't have to be fanatics. Gandalf61


 * How long do we have to lead by example before we determine that we are attempting to herd cats and take more active measures? Certainly you agree that the desk deals with contentious topics poorly, and that's putting it softly.Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessary to control everyone and eliminate every comment which you don't like. Ask yourself, does this disrupt Wikipedia (meaning, in this case, preventing us from answering other Ref Desk questions) ?  Definitely not.  Life goes on, the world doesn't end.  I advocate tolerance. StuRat 06:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From the main page
I moved this from the main page as it does not adress the question at all:

I haven't been at this desk for a while, but I find it hard to believe this "debate" has been rehashed that many times. I also don't think we need citations to well accepted facts. Perhaps we should direct the asker to a communismwiki. <font color="#6644FF">X ['<font color="#006600" face="Times">Mac Davis '] (<font color="#6688AA">DESK |<font color="#666666">How's my driving? ) 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Move made here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of successful trolling
For actual thread see Reference_desk/Miscellaneous

Simple question, why is this useful to ref desk? David D. (Talk) 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It shows that we can handle a potentially contentious question in an objective and mature fashion. When I first saw the question I was in favour of deleting it (a very rare occurance for me), but I am pleasantly surprised at how well it has been handled. The answers are mostly factual, and make some good points about the separation between the stances of individual politicians and the official platforms of their parties, and about the difficulty of deciding whether a particular stance is religiously motivated or not. Yes, some of thes responses could have been briefer, and some could be improved if they gave sources, but overall I would give us a 7/10 on this one. If the questioner was trying to provoke a big heated argument, then they failed. Gandalf61 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we point people to articles about controversies, rather than slugging through the controversy here, this has the advantage of making it more likely they get a verifiable and neutral answer. The ref desk is not a panel discussion.  Friday (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is valuable IMO- we can give a more complete answer by talking through it than simply linking to an article, which is subject to constraints like notability, enc, and notability --⁪froth T 02:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this were a panel discussion website, not an encyclopedia, I'd agree with you. As it is, this stuff belong elsewhere.  Friday (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see lots of opinions in here. That's not, as Friday says, what the ref desk is for.  This isn't Crossfire, it's Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * David, Friday, SCZenz - I am really trying to understand why you don't like this thread. Can you explain exactly which part of this thread you think is inappropriate for the RDs ? Is the question ? If so, is it the question's content or its style (in other words, would a differently phrased question on the same subject be acceptable) ? Is it the responses ? If so, is it all of the responses, or just some of them (for example, the meta-discussion in the middle of the thread) ? Thanks. Gandalf61 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The following responses fail WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT or WP:NPOV: 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC), 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC), 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC), 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC), 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC), 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC), 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC), 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC), 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The following response is excellent: 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest are all questionable. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I want answers to provide facts, not opinions, and ideally those facts should link to reliable sources or Wikipedia articles. Of course, "XYZ thinks ABC" is a fact, but we should not be arguing for particular opinions.  And no, I don't like the meta-discussion either.  I don't like the question, of course, because it calls almost unavoidably for opinions&mdash;but the issue that I think we can fix is to scrupulously avoid providing those opinions. -- SCZenz 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed question
This question was asked and answered by the same person. The reference desk is not a good place to indulge your fandom. --⁪froth T 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Will Brett Favre return for another season?
 * Another season of what? - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently American Football. 惑乱 分からん 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * Nobody knows but Favre. Not that it'll prevent the sports media from incessantly reporting on the lack of news for the next three months, of course. &mdash; Lomn 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hes coming back. I guarauntee it. Rya Min 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rya, you asked the question and then answered it. The reference desk is not a good place to indulge your fandom. Please take it somewhere else. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Enough editors slapping templates on the page anonymously
People have gone to an extreme recently slapping a new template on any questions which have any aspect of inquiring about nutrition, anatomy, physiology. It has a medical emblem and warns against asking medical advice, even when reasonable editors might feel that no such advice was asked or proferred. It takes a very long and tedious time to slog through the page history to see who posted it, so as to allow discussion wiuth the editor as to whether it is necessary. Please have the common courtesy to identify yourself by the usual 4 tildes when you slap a warning template on the reference desk. Otherwise it might be taken as vandalism or disruptive editing. Is there any provision in the editing rules that says it is fine to place templates anonymously, or that it would be a violation to remove an anonymously placed template if one disagrees that it is needed? Are people at least noting in an edit summary that they placed the template?Edison 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:CDlask started the POINT exercise on Jan 17 by placing one in response to the question"What types of eel are safe to ingest, as opposed to those that are toxic and therefore not safe to ingest?". I have removed it. Edison 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that templates aren't comments, and if they aren't attributed (or justified anywhere) they can be removed on sight if you don't think they're right, just as for example can be removed from an article if it's not justified on the talk page.  If someone wants to restore it, let them start a discussion here. -- SCZenz 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there was only one editor adding the medical advice template anonymously; I've asked him to sign the template when he adds it from here on in, and I hope that he will heed that request. (As SCZenz has said, it might be best to treat an unsigned template similarly to article templates like {NPOV}&mdash;remove them where they're inappropriate.  If an editor doesn't sign the template, then they probably aren't all that interested in feedback on it.)  In any case, nobody should edit war over the placement of a template.
 * As to the somewhat more challenging problem of determining what constitutes a request for medical advice, I'm afraid that educaiton will just take a bit of time. If someone places a medical advice template incorrectly, please raise the issue with them – politely – on his talk page. If you're unsure about the appropriateness of a template, feel free to drop a note about it here.  To identify a question which seeks medical advice, I shamelessly promote my own guideline from further up the page in the section titled :
 * A medical question will almost always present one or more symptoms, and/or one or more elements of medical history.
 * The symptoms will be those of the poster, or ascribed to a friend or relative.
 * A medical advice question will solicit an opinion about diagnosis (What is this?), prognosis (Should I be worried about this?), or courses of action (What should I do about this?).
 * Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, this is not a good trend.

Whether or not this is intended, a template puts on the airs of official policy even though it is the opinion of just one person. Please, use them sparingly. Vranak

I don't think we need to use them sparingly. I think we shouldn't use them at all! What is the point? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is to gain an appearence of authority without actually having any. Vranak
 * Perhaps. Perhaps people feel they are somehow protecting wikipedia from possible recriminations - they are not, we are already protected by our content disclaimers, which are linked to on every page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disclaimers can not protect from gross negligence or willful misconduct. Stating that you don't give medical advice and then giving medical advice is willful. If said medical advice is harmful, it is misconduct. I strongly suggest individuals who believe giving medical advice on this board to be OK get Brad Patrick to bless their opinion before continuing. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that we should be giving medical advice on this page! What I am saying is sticking a template that states "wikipedia does not give medical advice" when we have a link to a disclaimer that says exactly the same thing is stupid and paranoid and that we should be doing it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course no one is saying we should give medical advice. What is being said is that people ARE giving medical advice. Just because wikipedia is legally protected should not mean that the medical advice is left on the page (how many people actually see the disclaimer at the bottom?). Leaving the advice up could be construde as negligent even if there is no liability issue.
 * In lieu of the fact that deleted medical advice is usually reinserted the tag was a compromise, but since you are against the tags are you suggesting that the inevitable medical advice that is given each week of RD should be deleted? Or do you recommend that a disclaimer in the form of prose, instead of a boxed template, should be written each time? Or we should just let it stand, knowing we are not liable? David D. (Talk) 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's the box that I really object to. If people want to point out that people should see their doctor if they have medical concerns in a prose form (which is what people have been doing in the past, and has worked perfectly well AFAIK) then I'm OK with that. I don't like the nannying assumption that people who ask questions on the ref desk are stupid and will take the advice of a bunch of strangers rather than seeing thier own doctor and therefore needs the point that they shouldn't hammered home with an intrusive template. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of a template like that isn't so much to make the questioner take it more seriously (AFAIK), but to stop prospective answerers from disregarding the rules about medical advice, as they have been doing when people used the simple prose form. Since people have been answering these questions in a way that could leave Wikipedia liable, something clearly needs to change. The template is designed to be polite to the questioner, but is aimed at responders. Skittle 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate OR
I removed a comment here:

"As close as I can figure, both tonsilitis and the common cold are caused by breathing in more undesireable material (dust, particulate matter, gases from central heating, outgassing from paints, varnishes, carpets etc.) than the respiritory system can handle. This is just speculation though, and perhaps not validated by the current scientific community. Vranak"

First: This is not correct. The common cold is caused by viruses. Tonsilitis is caused by either a viral or bacterial infection of the tonsils. As it is not correct, it is unverifiable - WP:V.

Second: This is origional research, as stated - "This is just speculation though." - WP:OR

Such answers are not acceptable for a reference desk. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over it.


 * By the way, do you suppose that someone who spent all their life outdoors would ever get a cold or risk tonsilitis? I think not. Vranak


 * Better to request on his talk page that the response be cited or revised than to immediately remove it... but I agree that the answer to the question is better without that comment, and I certainly don't argue it should be restored. -- SCZenz 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Welll, things we know are incorrect shouldn't produce much objection when they're removed. When it comes to questions like "Who wins in a fight between James Bond and Superman?", speculation is the order of the day, obviously.  When it comes to questions that don't require speculation, the above is a good illustration of why it's best to avoid it.  Friday (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever noticed how everybody seems to get colds in the winter? And that in the winter, people are outdoors a lot less, and keep their homes closed up snug as a bug, and have central heating running all the time, stirring up dust galore?


 * The whole 'virus' theory is used as a hackneyed plot device in Hollywood zombie movies, and I personally don't give it much more credence in explaining medical conditions. That said, I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for fringe theories, no matter how much intuitive sense they make. If Hipocrite wants to keep things strict and to the letter of the law, that's his perogative. Vranak
 * Well there's an unexpected twist--71.247.111.77 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to simply disagree with a response rather than remove it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, I agree. However, blatantly unhelpful responses are in an area where outright removal is, IMO, sometimes justified.  Friday (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Intuitive sense says that the sun rotates around the Earth. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The sun does rotate around the earth. Or vice versa — whichever you prefer. It's just more parsimonious to stick with the latter, given the motion of other celestial bodies. And that's what my 'incorrect, speculative original research' has in spades: parsimony. Vranak


 * Debating the merits of these opinions is outside the scope of Wikipedia. We're simply not equipped for it. This is what "no original research" is about- please adhere to that policy.  Friday (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just logging back in here to reword that ;). The point stands - intuition doesn't mean jack. Your solution doesn't have parsimony when it violates actual observations and experiments on the topic. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I vehemently disagree with Varnak's opinion ("virus theory"??), I don't think his comment should have been removed. He has every to express his opinion on the issue, no matter how quixotic. As far as I know (and I may be gravely mistaken), the No Original Research policy applies to article text only. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour  t  19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He has the right to say what he wants, in his own house, certainly. This is irrelevant here.  FWIW, the talk page guidelines and the ref desk guidelines both say that important policies like NOR apply there.  Friday (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this debate has probably reached the end of its useful life. I will simply say that I respectfully disagree, and there's no need to apologize if and when a scientific study bears me out. The notion that tonsilitis and the common cold are linked, which was the questioners original concern, has been given merit by Edison, so I'll leave it at that. Vranak


 * Thanks Friday, I didn't know that. But I was kind of asking for OR myself. My question isn't whether the common cold and tonsilitis are linked. I am trying to understand why they seem to be linked. Of course, I would be much more likely to accept published research on the matter, but I have to come to find that original research often gives a lot of interesting insights (see the Earth-stops-spinning discussion for example, which is completely OR, but very interesting nonetheless). &mdash;  Lestat  deLioncour  t  20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree on the desk, or at the user's talk page? The former often seems to lead to a drawn out argument, neither side providing verifiable information; something i don't think we should be encouraging. Best that statements which cannot be backed by a reliable source never make it to the desk in the first place, what's the best way to move the desk in that direction?&mdash;eric 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm you make a reasonable point. Sometimes it is better to nip things in the bud so to speak. But people do frequently give answers in the form of "in my experience - blah blah blah" which is certainly OR. This is a chatty sort of page. Removing well intentioned answers seems a bit icky to my wiki editor brain. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to request wrong answers be revised than to remove them. I wouldn't have removed this one personally because it clearly identified itself as being based on experience rather than sources&mdash;one thing that should be nipped in the bud is answers that claim to give commonly-accepted facts but for which no source can be provided.  Also, you might note, in case you've not been following the situation here in detail lately, that a lot of us are trying to make the ref desk less chatty than it has been, in large part because asking people to use common sense simply wasn't working.  -- SCZenz 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can understand that I felt a little offput by Hipocrite removing my comment, especially as I gave a strong disclaimer. Is it too much to expect that regular editors would accord a little respect for one another, and tolerate some things that they might not entirely agree with, as a common courtesy? Vranak


 * If people who are aware they are proponents of fringe theories are offput when someone removes them from a science reference desk, perhaps those proponents should find venues that are more ameniable to such theories. You do not WP:OWN your contibutions. You certainly are not permitted to misinform people here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So that's a no, you aren't interested in extending such courtesies. Very well. Vranak


 * I agree with User:LestatdeLioncourt: while I disagree with what you said, I don't believe that justifies removing it. You properly identified them as your own thoughts, which is good enough for me.  Subsequent editors are certainly free to point out that some 99% of the scientific community goes with the "virus theory", as you put it, but the nonconsensus deletion of your contribution was just plain rude. StuRat 06:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so according to our articles on tonsilitis and the common cold:


 * Bacterial tonsillitis may be caused by Group A streptococcal bacteria, resulting in strep throat. Viral tonsillitis may be caused by numerous viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus (the cause of glandular fever) or the Coxsackie virus.


 * Acute viral nasopharyngitis, often known as the common cold, is a mild viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory system.


 * This is the conventional view of Western physiology. Quick question though: where do these bacteria and viruses come from? It appears to me to be a just so explanation. Perhaps there's a environmental reason that these bacteria and viruses start showing up? Vranak
 * Well one thing that changes is that people are in more close proximity. When you're out and about the germs and viruses are all diluted (Warning: This represents original ideas, speculation and opinion all rolled into one) David D. (Talk) 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with this, but it still does not address the issue of where these pathogens, and their associated conditions, come from in the first place. You can say that colds and tonsilitis are just caused by viruses, but where did the first virus come from, and why did it originate? Vranak


 * Hey, that might even make a good ref desk question :) See Virus.  Friday (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway you might see what I'm getting at. The respiratory system is responsible for taking in air, and if that air isn't entirely clean, perhaps that's what should be regarded as the cause of tonsilitis and the common cold, not some consistently-observable but otherwise-mysterious viruses.


 * His midi-chlorian count is over 13,000 -- he's the strongest Jedi ever! Vranak


 * Just out of interest, when you say bad air, are you refering to dust and dirt as opposed to biological origin? If that were the case, wouldn't smoking give you a cold? As an aside, smokers are probably more susceptable to viruses (lung epithelial cell damage and immuno suppression), so there probably is a corrollation. But if it was only bad air, one might expect smokers to be ill all the time not just more susceptible. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way I'm not sure viruses are so weird rahter than highly specialised. There are bacteria alive today that are undergoing massive genome shrinkage, such as Buchnera that cannot live without their hosts (in this case a mutualistic intracellular symbiont of aphids). It is estimated that they have coevolved for the last 200 million years. Given the estimated age of life, >3.5 billion years, there seems more than enough time for something like a virus to become extremely minimalist. Another example is Mycoplasma genitalium.  In short, for a symbiotic lifestyle a large number of genes is n ot required. David D. (Talk) 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding cigarettes, all that toxicity just plain-old poisons and suppresses natural functions of the respiritory system, like inflammation and mucous production. I knew a fellow who was morbidly obese, with all manner of physical ailments, and who smoked habitually. He never got a cold once, though it wasn't because of a robust immune system.


 * As for viruses and bacteria existing symbiotically, that is definitely in agreement with my way of thinking. Drugs targeted at viruses and such are really just aimed at getting rid of symptoms, and not addressing the underlying cause of an illness. Vranak


 * Yep, not much you can do about viruses. David D. (Talk) 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)