Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 52

Removing question
This is a little disturbing. Just in case someone is going to come along and post an answer in the face of all the refusals to answer so far, I'm going to blank it. No problem if y'all disagree and wish to restore it. Franamax (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to the removal, there was no suggestion of impropriety in the original question. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I object also. We have no policy against questions on the possibly inappropriate use of substances that are, in some jurisdictions, controlled, nor should we have such a policy. Algebraist 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no policy to remove questions of this sort, the question needs to be restored. We can debate a future change in policy separately. ike9898 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While we wouldn't usually remove questions like that, I don't think the OP was ever going to get an answer, so it doesn't make much difference. We shouldn't get in the habit of removing questions that aren't either asking for legal advice or medical advice - even then, I prefer leaving the question up and explaining why you're not answering. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removal diff (which is more useful to this discussion than a wikilink to the current version). -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My worry here was that, even though the question had not so far been answered and there were warnings not to, some well-meaning IP might come along and lay out a recipe for making drugs. Assuming we don't want that to happen (which I'm sure many would debate), we would then have a problem. On a page with this many versions, can selective deletion or oversight even be done? To Algebraist, isn't the only jurisdiction we care about the one where the servers are running? To all, I realized my removal would be controversial, the only policy I relied on was WP:IAR, but I understand your concerns. Franamax (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, apologies for the lack of linking. Others have complained before that the Talk page discussion isn't linked, so I made sure to post here first so I would have something to link to. In the fresh light of day I see now that I linked a circle with nothing to talk about, which would be amusing, if it wasn't so pathetic. D'ohh! Franamax (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)If it is illegal in the USA to host a web server on which a question about solvents of two readily available medicines may be asked and answered, then I am sure the Foundation counsel would let us know. Apart from that, I see no reason whatsoever that would justify the removal of the question. It was not a request for legal advice, it was not a request for medical advice, and it was not an attack or any other infringement as far as I can see of any of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not censored (or so it is claimed), and to remove questions because some editors may disapprove of some potential uses of the answers is to set a very dangerous precedent. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The US is the only jurisdiction whose laws we have to worry about, but since (as DuncanHill points out) there's no legal issue here, I assumed that when you deleted citing 'possibly inappropriate use of controlled substances' you intended these as moral grounds to delete. I don't see any moral imperative to suppress information about substances because they happen to be restricted in some fashing by the US government. Algebraist 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also need to consider the jurisdiction the answerer is in. I expect in most laws the fact that the OP has given a somewhat plausible and probably legal (at least, we can assume it's legal or the OP's supervisor would have stopped the experiment, they probably know the relevant law given the title of the course) reason for wanting the information would be a pretty strong defence. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m usually very opposed to anything that could set a bad precedent like this, but in this case I think common sense supersedes the guidelines. This question was quite suspicious for a number of reasons. Wouldn’t a student hove batter recourses than Wikipedia for this information? And if it really is a student we shouldn’t be doing his work for him anyway. I also agree with Franamax’s reasons for reverting, which is not to say I will support any similar reversion in the future however. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia is not a primary source, you could say there's a better source for the answer to any question, but we try to answer them anyway. And the guideline regarding "homework" suggests that the questioner try to solve the problem first; in this case, he or she named several solvents that failed to work.  Finally, there's a difference between homework and research (even at the undergraduate level).  Homework is constructed to solvable based on what the student (should have) learned in the course.  Research may reasonably require help from other sources in order to overcome problems.  (Heck, the problems may be insurmountable, period.)  Helping someone with obstacles in their research is not the same as giving them the answer to a homework problem.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Let me try to run through some of my reasoning here. 1) 4th year - presumably a thesis, and you've decided to crush up your own prescription pills to extract (and therefore purify) the active subtances? Ummm, aren't you supposed to actually consume your prescription medicine, or else terminate the course? What do you tell your doctor on renewal - "I - uhh - crushed my pills, I need more"?; 2) You've made it to fourth year forensics, which must have some heavy chem involved, and you can't figure it out - but you can't ask your prof or your thesis advisor (or your tutorial leader or someone else in the lab)? 3) The desired answer will presumably result in purification of a morphine derivative at some stage - and that is undeniably a narcotic substance. (Forgive me for inclarity on how the liver processes precursors to get the active compound, I think it snips off a hydroxy- group.) Obtaining a narcotic substance (not a Class I restricted substance, an actual known narcotic) really can only lead to harm - and I really wonder why a prof would approve that thesis topic. As far as morality goes, I'm no dope and Lucy agrees with me, but you need to draw the line, preferably before you're looking at a mirror. But purifying your painkillers really leads nowhere good - so maybe that is my morality. 4) The major factor for me was looking at the thread as it was when I first saw it (I was on an article-tear elsewhere for most of the night): I didn't see anything positive, I saw some decline-to-answer and some warnings, and I didn't see anything good coming from the thread staying there. So I blanked it with an explanation.
 * That blanking and talk page post was my very last action before going to bed last night (well, morning). I made sure to be clear that if my blanking was reverted, I would have no problem with it - always a good idea for the last thing you do at the end of a long wiki-session! As no-one has yet seen fit to restore the thread, I interpret this as grudging approval for my judgement, with serious concerns expressed thereto, which I have studied, and take to heart. That my action survives this long also reinforces to me that we all take the RefDesks seriously and want the best outcome - so thank you all! This was a marginal call at best, but I made the call based on the above train of thought and I felt it best to err on the side of "do no harm". Regards! Franamax (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I did not undo the blanking was that there were intervening edits by the time it became clear that there was neither consensus nor policy to remove. I have now asked essentially the same question on the desk, as I believe that our articles would be improved by the inclusion of such information. I do not doubt Franamax's good faith in any way . DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that neither the original poster nor DuncanHill looked very closely at our articles, as the answer to the question is right there. We even have an article on the process.
 * Incidentally, I second Franamax's analysis&mdash;what kind of fourth-year forensics student is doing a project using his own prescribed medication without being able to do a search (literature, Google, or even Wikipedia) to find the readily-available answer to his question? Frankly, if he is about to complete a degree in forensics, then he is dangerously lazy or incompetent, and I don't want to help him get credentialled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe TOAT would be kind enough to point me to the section in the articles in which solvents are mentioned, as apart from a passing mention in the hydrocodone article of paracetamol being removed from compound preparations with water (and a mention that this is not a particularly effective method) they do not appear to me to actually answer my question. Perhaps TOAT would also like to consider whether calling editors "dangerously lazy or incompetent" is conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DuncanHill, before you accuse TOAT of misnaming "editors" of Wikipedia as anything at all, perhaps you should check the OP's edits. Is one single edit ever in the history of humankind indicative of concern for a collaborative atmosphere? Franamax (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you welcomed after your first edit by editors assuming you were up to no good and refusing to help you? DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My first edit was to remove vandalism, and I took a half-hour to be sure the moon doesn't orbit 9m above the Earth and that the edit I restored had the proper figures, thank you very much. Then I signed up. I appreciate your passion on behalf of the ideological notion that we simply must take every passing post as seriously as we possibly can - I just don't believe in it. Let me ask a different question - have you ever in your life acted in good faith then discovered you had been taken advantage of, or made a fool of? Did you take any steps after that to protect yourself whilst still being able to extend your good faith? Franamax (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been taken advantage of and made a fool of, but I have found from experience that the benefits of assuming good faith, and being willing to try to help whenever I can, far outweigh the risk that a few people might try to take advantage of my good nature. Of course, one does find that a few people do exhibit a pattern of disruptive behaviour, but one responds to that on a case-by case basis, rather than assuming the worst whenever possible. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Duncan for having asserted your belief in my good faith, I'm sorry you would feel the need to strike that - I can only promise you that I am indeed proceeding from my best good faith. I think/hope that we all want a good outcome here. In the case of the specific question, I've outlined above the logical steps that led me to the conclusion that in this particular case, the balance of probabilities led me to the conclusion that the OP question sufficiently failed the test of being the object of good faith answers. I realize that may not meet your standard, but I hope you realize that I acted on (my own) logical principles and I have carefully read all the commentary here so as to better understand the impact of my actions. Franamax (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck because of your comment on the IP's contribution history. I do think that this thread went downhill when a certain other editor stuck his oar in, and that may have made my response to you more heated than it needed to be. As for "the test of being the object of good faith answers" - a lack of good-faith answers says very little about the questioner, but rather a lot about the answerers. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides DuncanHill's response and WP:AGF and all that, you cannot conclude anything about a person's contributions throughout "the history of humankind" by looking at an IP's editing history. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was calling the original poster – at best – 'dangerously lazy or incompetent', not you. I stand by that as a fair assessment of his skills if he wants to claim to be in the fourth year of a forensics program. Our article on hydrocodone has a link to a much more detailed (and footnoted) article specifically describing the separation of hydrocodone and paracetamol. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was perfectly well aware that you were talking about the original questioner. It may be hard for you to understand, but some of us do actually object to other people being treated badly, not just ourselves. The question I posted is not about the separation of hydrocodone and paracetamol, but about the solvents of those two drugs, which are not mentioned (as far as I can see) in the articles. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Either he's telling the truth – in which case he's dangerously lazy and/or incompetent and/or reckless, and he shouldn't be working in forensics where he may have a material impact on who goes to prison – or he's lying to us. A would-be forensics scientist or technician who either can't be bothered or can't figure out how to formulate a straightforward Google search is a danger to society and probably to himself as well.  WP:SPADE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my question is still unanswered, and contrary to your assertion above, the articles in question do not contain the information I requested. By the way, the essay you just linked to includes "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks" - maybe you haven't read it lately. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read it, and I stand by my assessment. How would you describe a forensic scientist who couldn't formulate a Google query, or who couldn't be bothered to do it himself?  How about one who – if he actually did the experiments claimed – screwed up the liquid extractions he asked about (because at least some of those listed ought to have worked)?  I have no choice but to conclude he is at least one of lazy, incompetent, or lying.  If you think that's too harsh for his sensitive ears, then wait until you see what the first defense attorney he meets does to him.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I hope that you will forgive me for standing by my assessment of you as rude and unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping back to the original concern, aren't presciption medications labeled "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."? Therefore regardless of how he might intend to use the resulting separated chemicals, he's already in hot water (so to speak:) just using his med for a purpose other than as prescribed, and his request is more directly illegal than I had initially thought. If one is authorized to do experiments, one has access to chemicals specifically for that purpose. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the questioner's actions in real life may be in violation of the law, or harmful to himself. And maybe asking here is a sign that he's not fit for his chosen career.  And those factors may be enough reason for any individual here to decide not to help him.  But what Wikipedia policy or guideline requires the removal of the question in such circumstances?  -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coneslayer for being a voice of reason, but I really can't be bothered with it anymore. Intellectual curiosity is clearly unwelcome on the Science desk at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll join DH in saying that I deplore the removal of these questions, not least given that we already publish the answer elsewhere. Chilling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that slope is quite as slippery as you suggest it is. This was a stupid question, and, whether of not actually removing it was really justified, we certainly had no reason to answer it:
 * If the OP was telling the truth about doing this for a chemistry class, they shouldn't have been asking the question on Wikipedia: they should've asked their instructor instead, or at least consulted their textbook.
 * If the OP was lying and was really trying to extract hydrocodone for recreational use, they definitely shouldn't have asked for instructions here: would you ingest a compound you'd purified based on vague answers given by random people on a website that "anyone can edit", particularly knowing that doing it wrong can lead to serious liver failure and potentially death?
 * This isn't about moralism; personally, I feel that if someone wants to get high on hydrocodone, that's their business. But I'd rather they didn't try extracting it based on instructions from Wikipedia, since that's a nontrivial process with really bad consequences if you get it wrong.  And if we were going to give instructions on that, we'd better at least provide complete and detailed instructions, including the ever-so-important part about verifying the purity of the resulting product.  Which I kind of doubt anyone here is actually qualified and willing to do.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first bullet point, when I was doing my undergraduate research, I had an excellent and caring adviser, who is renowned in his field. But one of our first conversations basically consisted of him saying this:  "You'll be programming in C, but I only know FORTRAN, so I can't be of much help to you there.  You're working on a Unix machine, but I use VMS.  And you'll use IRAF for your image processing, but I can't stand it, and instead use programs I wrote myself.  If there's anything else I can help you with, just ask."  So it's rather... optimistic... to expect them always to have the answers.  Nor did I ever really consider faculty to be the problem-solvers of first resort.  If you've generally found the answers to your practical research troubles by asking your professor or looking in a textbook, I salute you, but it doesn't always work out that way, even for those of us who have generally had charmed lives.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a nice anecdote, but the plural of anecdote is not data. I'm sure if we collected data on hundreds of college students (it would be a graduate student in this particular topic), we'd find that the professors are helpful and do know the material. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have completely missed my point. My adviser was knowledgeable and was helpful.  But in research, as opposed to planned-out labs or written homework, you may be employing techniques or tools that your adviser does not personally have experience with.  Or the student may simply want to show initiative and try to solve the problem (quasi-)independently.  Or the professor might be on travel.  Answering Ref Desk questions with "ask your professor" is a frankly lousy approach.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, perhaps so. But, you know, this isn't rocket science.  It isn't even particularly advanced chemistry.  If the OP was taking a class in "analysis of controlled substances", the instructor had better know how to extract the substances they're analyzing.  Especially if they've assigned a research project about it.  What the OP described isn't "research" in the sense of something novel and untried whose results you might publish; what they're describing is just a class project, something you do and write up so that the instructor can grade you.  As such, it would be expected that the instructor know how to do the project themselves.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And god forbid any student ever try to find something out without asking his lecturer directly, or imagining that a reference desk on an online encyclopædia might be a good place to ask. Don't these people know that intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn are contrary to Wikipedia's finest traditions? DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rarely seen such a disgusting display of "let's make up some reasons to help us get away with assuming bad-faith". There are several editors here who really should be ashamed of themselves, and who, if they had any intellectual honesty left, would now be seriously questioning what the hell they are doing here. People ask questions - get over it. If you don't want to answer them then fine - just don't answer. This leaping to conclusions in an apparent race to assume something worse than the last fellow is sickening. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll note that this (not answering the question) is exactly what I did. Indeed, I wouldn't have answered it anyway, for the simple reason that I don't know the exact answer offhand myself.  But I'd kind of appreciate it if you'd cut down on the hyperbole in your arguments a little bit: there's a difference between "not answering questions about basic chemistry" and "not answering questions where the asker gives every indication that they're 1) quite likely lying about their reasons for asking the question, 2) if so, likely to seriously harm themselves if provided with a partial answer and, 3) if not, still basically asking us to help with their homework."  (And let me make it clear that I'm specifically referring to the original question here, not to your repost of it.)


 * Also, though assuming good faith and competence is indeed a good rule to live by, it must be weighted against both the likelihood of the assumption being wrong and the consequences if it should turn out so. Let me try an analogy: If someone asks for my help in plugging in an electric appliance, I'll be glad to do it.  If they ask for my help in plugging in a bare electric cord with the wires stripped, however, I will question their intentions, since it's hard to think of any sane reason for them to do that except to hurt themselves or others (or cause property damage).  Of course, it's possible that they just want to carry out a simple physics demonstration and do in fact know enough about electrical safety to safely handle an exposed live mains wire — but if so, why didn't they know how to plug in the cord in the first place?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When I see someone asking how to plug a stripped electric cable into the mains, then I will seek your advice on how to deal with it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little disturbed to see how the concept of removing threads from the RefDeks somehow get turned into the last defence of the Western order of civilization. It's really not that big of a deal. Yes, we want to maintain the ethos of assuming good faith and doing our best to answer each question that comes our way. At the same time though, we need to be aware of the possibilities of trolling and misuse of our efforts. There is really no doubt that this happens - we have to be sure that doesn't poison our overall approach, but we also need to weigh situations carefully. If something gets removed, that action needs scrutiny, but it's not the end of the world. We're not Yahoo Answers, we are our own group aspiring to our own standards, and we learn and grow based on our own experience. I really would urge everyone to relax over this, no-one likes to see a question removed - but our differences of opinion shouldn't descend to the level of acrimony and accusations of bad faith. Lighten up people, one day we'll be dead. Hopefully the wiki will still be here, and it will have forgotten all our angst over this one small issue. Franamax (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two comments, independent on the specifics of the above: 1. on Wikipedia precedent holds inordinate sway (no doubt modeled on a judicial model). Once people start doing something they start thinking that they should be applying whatever reasoning they had universally. It becomes its own end. 2. asking how to make a nuclear weapon is not quite the same thing as asking about something that the average person could actually accomplish. It's kind of like asking about how to get to the moon. Sure, some people, could make good on that information, but they have resources well beyond asking questions on the Ref Desk. For everyone else it is purely academic. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Humanities troll question removed
Under "Granny Smith" heading: "How many women can take 2 granny smiths without their eyes watering? For the avoidance of doubt, Im talking vaginal capacity of course!". I removed the aforementioned. Is that judged an appropriate action? Edison2 (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - though my judgement may not be the best to rely on, per the above. :) It's a nonsense question and IMO constitutes abuse of the desk. I very much suspect our friend is still hanging about, in fact I've seen the IP range still making borderline posts. It may be getting time for another SSP/CU request to round up the latest funsters. What do others think? It's possible we're just getting a new round of idlers now that school is back in, but that one fits the pattern. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a repost of the same question from the misc desk by 79.76.154.239, who got blocked as a sock and who seemed to tag-team edit with User:LCMk2. Yup, WP:DUCK. DMacks (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly the most literal case of WP:BEANS I've ever seen ;-). I wouldn't have removed it, but it's not like there'd be too many legit responses anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The bean capacity would doubtless be much greater, numerically, than the apple capacity. Edison2 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a Light current sock. (Though it would be appropriate to remove that question as obvious trolling even if it weren't posted by a banned editor.)  For future reference, it is safe to remove any borderline trolling question from 79.76.* as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalism soapbox
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Environmentalism_is_a_SCAM.3F )

It is obviouly soapboxing and I'd replace it with the deleted template but it doesn't seem to mention that even though it is prohibited. Plus the replies already confuse the situation for me even more. Would someone else like to deal with it? Also if this happens again what is the correct course of action? (Also as an aside how do I actually use a template? I used to know but alas have forgotten) 88.211.96.3 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a frequently-repeated rant from an IP who shows up periodically with his conspiracy theory of the day for an hour, posts a few replies to himself, and then leaves. While I've got no strong opinion on proactively removing his threads, I don't see much reason to strain ourselves re-adding them in this case.  I'll also note that it's always worth a quick jaunt through his contribs to see if and where he's posted the same tripe in article space. &mdash; Lomn 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who deleted it. It's a recurring rant thinly veiled as a question. IIRC in the past people have tried answering honestly, but that just encouraged him to reply with more ranting.
 * Obviously, I'll apologize if consensus is to put it back. APL (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As to how to use a template, you put it in curly braces, for instance obvious medical questions get removed and "rd-removed" put in its place. And of course it's a good idea to use Show Preview before saving, just in case you've done something wrong and are about to destroy the entire internet. ;) I'm not sure, do we have a template for removing soapboxing? Franamax (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone could always make one (I would but have no idea how to be honest). God knows we need it sometimes. What is the consensus on removing answers to the question even if the question is a troll. To me it would seem logical to remove the answers as well and maybe write an apology or put it in the template that we may or may not make but this is wikipedia and what seems logical to me often isn't what everyone else thinks. TheGreatZorko (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seen the mess you guys left. Removed the whole thing, since the environment is a "hot button" topic in this Presidential election. Someone could infer that Wikipedia is "pro environmentalist" and that environmentalists are not to be criticized at all, which is in violation of NPOV. The Republican commentators, especially Sean Hannity has depicted the Environmentalists as hypocrites many, many times, especially Al Gore, while Mark Levine (the conservative commentator) has commented that the US should use the RICO Act, the USA Patriot Acts to literally remove the environmentalists from society, while NPR (National Public Radio) praises the environmentalist agenda. BOTH sides may have found the mess here and will use it a ammunition. I hope I have done the right thing. If not, let me know on my talk page. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Lomm, many people have asked that question about the environmentalists and the environmental movement. I am looking foward to working here with Lomm and you guys on Wikipedia real soon, as soon as I can find out how and where I can "move in at" on here. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The RICO Act is a law the US Government has used and still uses against any organization, usually the Mafia, street gangs, to prosecute them for any and all criminal activities. The USA Patriot Acts are a set of laws designed to combat terrorists, be they be from another nation and/or domestic terrorists. Mark Levine wishes the US government to use these laws to literally shut down the environmental organizations and jail and/or commit the environmentalists to mental hospitals. I thought Michael Savage was bad until I heard this guy. Hope this helps. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For those that is interested in this, related matters, get a GOOD radio, tune it to the AM band, pick up Sean Hannity's website, Rush Limbaugh's website, Michael Savage's website, Mark Levine (Conservative commentator)'s website, others of the conservative/Republican political alignment websites to get a list of stations that carry their shows in your area (in the USA), then wait for their show to air, and you'll hear what I have referred to here, but I have referred to in a polite manner. Sean Hannity also has some shows on FOX News as well, and it is here that he has shown Al Gore acting like a hypocrite many times, incl.-ing airing videotapes that people have given him showing him flying smoke belching planes, as evidence. I hope this helps as well. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, is there a article concerning Talk Radio? You guys are the greatest. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it. Thanks. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * = Most of the discussion about Al Gore Are about his environmental opinions versus his "life style". WFPMWFPM (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

History question
Is there a way to view the history of all seperate desks at once? I'd find this very useful. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you registered as a user, you could set up a "watchlist" which would let you view recent changes to your pages of interest. Beyond that, I can't think of any way to combine a view of separate page histories, sorry! The way mediawiki works, each page is its' own separate entity. Franamax (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's the recent related changes feature that should do it for fairly recent history. You just need to make a page (a subpage of your user page would be best) which links to all the reference desks and then click on "related changes" in the side bar while viewing that page. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just realised the question was asked by an anon - you would need to create a account to create the page, but that's really easy to do - just click in the top right-hand corner. --Tango (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot to log in yesterday, silly bugger that I am. And thankyou for the idea. I shall try it now! TheGreatZorko (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just made the page and it seems to work fantastically. However I am getting my username changed. What will happen to the page when it does do you think? (The page is here if anyone wants to look) TheGreatZorko (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the renaming bureaucrat should move your user subpages along with your userpage. If they don't you can always do it yourself. Algebraist 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Spam (Politician's View on the Issues)
Removed this spam. It did not contain a single question that I could find. -- k a i n a w &trade; 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was one: My question is whether or not any political position decision tables exist elsewhere on the Internet or not? Algebraist 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Bit of a tricky one, looking at their past contributions under that IP...GbT/c 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the question now. Anyone feel the question should be reinstated? --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, I think the point is more that since there isn't enough indication that there's trolling, or spamming, going on, it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. It being reinstated is therefore a given... GbT/c 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just checking before hitting revert. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Religion reference desks
Hello. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion that, since it involves the Reference desk, I think you might want to add your thoughts to. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, I believe, almost unanimous consensus at the moment that no new reference desks are to be created. In fact a number of editors feel that the Entertainment Desk, for one, could be merged back into humanities.


 * New desks are proposed fairly regularly here (proposals have included a history desk, a psychology desk, and many others I've forgotten the nature of). There are a number of reasons why these proposals are opposed: more desks means fewer questions in one place, more desks that editors must watch (this has historically resulted in poorer answers), more confusion for users attempting to ask a question, undue emphasis placed on subjects that are just as important as other subjects not given their own desk, and a loss of symmetry on the splash page. :)


 * This talk page is the only correct place for a discussion of adding an additional desk btw. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. This is currently covered adequately in the humanities desk.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do see and understand your points. There are similar troubles with having enough dedicated editors on WP:FEED and WP:DRAW. However I don't think you're addressing the actual proposal I made which is to create individual reference desks at the various religion wikiprojects- not here. At the most there would be a link leading from here to an index page. Many religion related articles' talk pages become cluttered with Q&A material (Why aren't bunnies kosher? Why can't Catholics eat meat on Friday?) not spiritual advice as mentioned by another editor. The idea here is to address a problem that is happening, not to try to pretend things are the way we want it to be. I'm not sure simply including a link to the humanities desk in wikiprojects' talk page templates would curtail this type of Q&A posting because I think people want to ask Moslems about Islam, Catholics about Catholicism, etc. I expect that a link to a "Wikiproject Judaism Reference desk" would be more likely to get questions about the phrasing of Hebrew National's advertising than the Humanities desk here. Of course this is all predicated on the supposition that the editors in the various wikiprojects are interested in this kind of thing- a huge assumption I know. This is why I posted it for debate. Anyways, you all have a good night, I'm going to have some dinner. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out at WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia doesn’t really exist to provide spiritual advice. People who post questions on the talk pages of religion articles can be redirected to a reference desk, a relevant chat room, or a real world spiritual leader. Neither do WikiProjects typically deal with general questions about their subject area, although they do deal with questions about articles within their scope.


 * Anyway, enjoy your dinner. :) Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Elipongo, but I think it would be better off with a note on the talk page saying "This is not the place to ask questions about (subject). Please ask such questions at the reference desk."  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A ref desk is a ref desk, it doesn't make any different which page it happens to be a subpage of. The reasons apply to Wikiproject ref desks just as they apply to ones here (there are other reasons against wikiproject ref desks as well - writing articles on a subject and answering questions on it are very different things, it would be best not to lose the experience of people here). --Tango (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all well taken. I think I'll try posting something like the following on problem talk pages:

Your thoughts on phrasing, appropriateness, or if there is an existing suitable template would be appreciated. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be able to merge this within talkheader instead.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a thought, but talkheader already has a link to WP:QUESTIONS which links to here. I think that template is meant for either very busy talk pages or ones that tend to develop drama. For polite but persistent questions, I prefer a more targeted notice. Since nobody else has commented, I think I'll implement it and see how it works. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Created it as a template, Q&A, for anyone who wishes to use it. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll alert
User:Bradley10, whose previous posts on the Ref Desk have been pretty, uh, tenuously credible, has become a pretty obvious troll with his latest contribution. Just a heads-up. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He had me going. I'm on full harlequin alert right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been kind of on the edge with him for a while now. The follow-up question he asked about the, uh, Satanic computer kinda pushed me over. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Look - I don't understand what this is all about. Captain, I don't like your little 'secret hidden messages' telling people not to answer my questions. And as for the suggestion that a genuine question about killer clowns - subject of many an urban legend, not to mention John Wayne Gacy, should suggest that I'm taking part in trolling. I managed to find some information about 'killer clown' rumours - and I don't really think I've disrupted the principles of the reference desk with my questions. Are you sure you're not being a little heavy-handed? Bradley10 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what's the Tagishsimon joke? I don't get it? Bradley10 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Killer clowns? Goat's heads in PCs? Not an eminent record of plausible questions. "I know there are killer clowns roaming the street" versus nothing at all like that from Scopes does not add up. Don't play us as fools. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec^2) The joke is Harlequin Enterprises. Anyway, if this were your first dubious question, you could probably get away with it, but your recent history includes:
 * goat skull in motherboard
 * Sleeping with an owl in the small of your back
 * If I eat enough royal jelly will I turn into a bee?
 * walrus on a walrus on a walrus
 * screaming old doll head
 * all of which are dubious. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Define me a 'plausible question', then, Tagis? I'm playing no-one as fools. If you don't want to answer, then no-one's forcing you to. I've had some good and interesting and relevant replies from these here desks. And I wasn't using the Snopes article as a reference - that came later, as should very much be apparent from my question. Bradley10 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't difficult for a non-troll to figure it out. This is a reference desk.  If you ask for a reference, there will be no problems.  Your questions are not asking for references.  You are asking for discussions about idiotic topics.  This is not a discussion desk.  Again, only a troll would have difficulty understanding the difference between a reference desk and a discussion forum. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

goat skull - something I read about on the Digitiser computer magazine as happening. owl - from "Foxes, Owls and All" by Molly Burkett Royal Jelly - Roald Dahl article walrus on a walrus - link screaming old doll head - link

If you think I have just made this up then there is another kettle of fish!

Also, are you also warning some of the others on the ref desk, including "I hope you had a big farm in the sunburn", the girl who thinks she's writing to Judy Blume's problem page, the one who thinks we were hit by an earthquake, and the whole zero gravity space sex debate. I think I'm in good company ... Bradley10 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you are in bad company. Citing other idiots does not convince us you are not one. Saying you;re happy in their company does not win your argument. And yes, some of those have been warned, and at least one banned. Do not go down that road.


 * A reasonable question is one for which there is even a scintilla of evidence. Take the clowns, for instance. Scopes aside - for the scopes article was about something different - justify your statement that the clowns are on the street & killing people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But I'm just saying, I'm not trolling. Some of those questions may not have been formulated in the best possible of ways... but I'm not a troublemaker.

1236 Bradley10 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A random set of google links for the search term clown does not cut it. 1 is about phobias. 2 is about nightmares. 3 is a film. 4 is a question not about killer clowns. You said "i know there are killer clowns about roaming and killing children and maybe adults". Have you ANY justification for that assertion whatsoever. And if you do not, can you not seer why we have a problem assuming your good faith? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not (and never have) said that I have read about people being killed by clowns on the internet. That does not mean that I have heard about it. In fact, the first point on the reference desk is to "search first". Thus it suggests I am looking for information that is not generally available on the internet, and relying on the knowledge of people on wikipedia?

The Clown that Killed Colombian Clowns Shot Dead

Bradley10 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The first of those is JWG again. The second is about clowns being killed. Look, here's the bottom line: whilst you persist in trying to convince us that you are not trolling, when all other indications are that you are, we just get into a spiral of further & further disbelieving you. Adducing a clown being killed story to justify your as yet unexplained "They're waling the streets" assertion just does not work. Suggestion: why don't we leave this conversation here. We'll monitor your contributions closely from now on, and if you do not troll, that'll be fine, and if you do, not so fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the text above the links? Bradley10 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. And I read your question, which was "i know there are killer clowns about roaming and killing children and maybe adults". How do you know this: that's the question you are ducking. Your bar-room lawyer argument is not very compelling, and you do not seem to be getting the message. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME? Can I refer you to WP:CIVIL? "Bar-room lawyer?"

If what you're having a bit of an objection about the word 'know', then it's true, I can't guarantee "justified true belief". But, as I'm sure someone as determined to analyse language as yourself would agree, this is not the general usage of the word 'know', which tends to refer to "am pretty darn sure". If I'd used that instead of "know", would we still be having this discussion? Now who's the "bar-room lawyer"? Bradley10 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have given no reason whatsoever for being "pretty darn sure". Once you address that issue, perhaps you can explain why you thought there was any possibility that eating royal jelly might turn you into a bee.  (Kafka is not a WP:RS when it comes to biology, BTW.)  -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)On what basis are you "pretty darn sure" that there are clowns wandering the streets? It amounts to the same thing: a ridiculous question based on a laughable premise amounting to trolling. I see you're a wiki-lawyer, too. Multi-skilled. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In both the royal jelly case, and with the clown case, these were things that I had heard that I wanted verified. My phrasing may not have been the most precise, but I don't expect that sort of (frankly quite insulting) reaction. Okay, putting those links up was facetious, but you have to understand that these are genuine questions I was after answers for. If the questions were a bit surprising or unusual; firstly, I thought that was the point of the reference desk, and second, these are questions that the "search first" option is for. If you want to call that wikilawyering, that's up to you. Bradley10 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote above that you got the royal jelly thing from a Roald Dahl piece. You called it an "article", but my googling suggests that it's a short story.  Dahl is a fiction writer.  There is no reason to think that the things he writes about have any bearing on the real world.  I would advise you to stop writing things like "I heard" or "I know" and actually state your sources.  That way, we can at least quickly dismiss the ridiculous ones.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare and contrast:
 * There are killer clowns wandering the streets. How many have they killed?
 * Are there / is there such a thing as killer clowns wandering the streets killing people?
 * You cannot surely be as articulate at arguing your corner here as you are, and ignorant of the telling difference between two such questions? Please do consider our patience exhausted and yourself on probation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it have been appropriate, therefore, to have asked "What are the effects of eating very large quantities of royal jelly? Has anyone ever attempted this? Would they turn into a bee?". Bradley10 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would have been slightly better. But since royal jelly does not turn bees into bees, there's no reason to suppose it would turn humans into bees. It seems to turn bees into queen bees if they are fed the stuff exclusively, IIRC. Tell me, were you ever in any doubt whatsoever as to whether or not eating royal jelly would turn you into a bee? It's not just the form of the question: it is the premise. In the bee example, the premise is so ridiculous as to render most and possibly all formulations of the question trolling - except perhaps when submitted by a juvenile who really does not have a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not reasonable to believe that a person capable of operating a computer successfully would honestly believe that humans could be turned into bees. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that the questioner is a troll. It is not reasonable to believe that a person capable of operating a computer successfully would honestly believe that clowns are roaming the streets killing people. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that the questioner is a troll. As such, I suggest simply blocking the user until he realizes that Wikipedia is not his juvenile playground. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please listen to me Bradley10
Bradley10: I am a patient man - but I too have reached the breaking point with your questions. I would like to add my voice to the many who see your questions as mostly lying on a spectrum between incomprehensible, through unanswerable all the way to annoying. You need to work MUCH harder on:


 * Exercising some self-control. Just because you see an amusing picture of a baby walrus sitting on it's parents back - does not mean you immediately have to rush to the ref desk and ask an incomprehensible and unanswerable question about it.  The Internet is full to overflowing with that kind of quasi-amusing stuff - and if everyone did what you did, there would be no more WP:RD.


 * Restrict yourself to questions that might reasonably have an answer. It it really VERY obvious to everyone that there could not (even in principle) be an answer to the Walrus stacking question.  You know that - please don't imagine you can lie about it and be believed.


 * Restrict yourself to questions you actually NEED to have answered - things that you might actually need to know for a reason. If we somehow did answer the walrus stacking question - what possible use could the answer be to you either now, or in the future?  Sure - I could ask the WP:RD to find the total amount of tuna caught by Taiwanese fishermen in 1997 - and a bunch of dedicated people might search for hours on the net to try to find the answer for me - but what's the point of putting actual, real people to all that trouble if I'm not going to ever actually use the information for something?  The Wikipedia help desk isn't a computer program - it's a lot of dedicated human beings who's time is valuable.


 * Always write in clear English, in full sentences, explaining in detail what needs to be answered - and perhaps give an indication of what the actual purpose of the answer is. If you had said:  "I saw a picture of a baby walrus sitting on it's mothers back [here] please can you tell me why walruses do this peculiar thing.  I'm interested to know because I plan on becoming a Walrus biologist when I grow up." - people who know a lot about zoology would go off and scour the web for information about how walrusses bring up their young and whether this behaviour is common - and that would have produced a lot of really great answers.

So that was a crappy question - like about 90% of the others you've asked (I'm not even going to debate that - you KNOW it's true - and I know it's true). Even you cannot believe it was sensible - and all your protests to the contrary are transparently and obviously untrue. We aren't a bunch of idiots around here (as should be very obvious if you read the super-intelligent answers so many people give to "real" questions) - if you think we believe one word of your arguments (above) then you are kidding yourself.

People who make a damned nuisance of themselves don't last long in Wikipedia-land. They get in trouble for one reason or another - and rather than try to help them through that, people gleefully set the admins on them - the trouble escalates - things turn ugly - they get banned - the bring up sock-puppets - they get banned again - then they get banned for life and it's "Game Over". Nobody likes this process - it's gut-wrenching and stressful and highly time-wasting. But it's the price we pay to get annoying people out of the system.

The smart people listen when others tell them they are misbehaving (I'm doing it now: "Bradley10 you are misbehaving") - and they back off and work hard to avoid that happening again. But those people are rare indeed. Please try to be one of the rare ones who listen - and not one of the MANY who end up being banned from editing Wikipedia for the rest of their lives.

So - make SENSIBLE use of the ref desk - please. We're give our time here for a serious reason - we're here to educate and inform - not to answer your inane babble everytime an idea pops into your head on some whim. Personally, I'll be on the lookout for more nonsense questions from you - and I will be deleting them on sight per WP:NONSENSE. If this occasionally causes a semi-sensible question from you to get wiped - well, that's the cost of being The boy who cried wolf. When 99% of your questions are crap - the other 1% will suffer.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1997 Taiwanese tuna catch was 17,789 mt. It has since declined, especially albacore. But yes, there are some questions that would take hours of research to answer. :) Franamax (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are awesome. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Steve for his admirable attempt to talk some sense into Bradley10. I'm not quite that optimistic, though; I honestly don't believe him to be as oblivious to why we object to his behavior as he pretends. Many of the questions he has asked are downright idiotic -- the one about someone turning into a bee is a particularly good example of that. Why? This should be obvious, but since we're clearly getting bogged down in the non-relevant here ("how should I ask about that, then?"), let me cut through to the heart of the matter: it's an idiotic question, because people do not turn into bees. First-graders know this. His responses here seem to be formulated to mire us in endless debate about semantics and intentions, just to keep the whole thing going. I really don't think we should fall for that. It just sucks away our time and energy and motivation, which we have far better uses for, and it'll never get us anywhere, because it's not a question of convincing him or making him understand. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So ignore him then. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. However, Steve's post would a good template to send to users who pretend not to be getting the message (and the 1% of cases who really don't get it, of which this user is not an example, as their articulacy attests).  The amount of space, time and effort this question has used up is virtually the definition of trolldom.  They object, they don't understand, they meant no harm, they want it explained in words that a 5th grader could understand - all the while wasting everyone's time.  Damn, he's got me doing it now.  So I'll retire now and go on about my business.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would propose that if we see Bradley10 posting nonsense questions, we simply remove them entirely without comment. Once they shape up, they can be extended the normal courtesy we extend to good-faith but mistaken posters here. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - I'll be doing the same. WP:NONSENSE defines patent nonsense as:
 * Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
 * ...and amongst the permissible remedy options are:
 * Move it to the talk page.
 * Move it to the user's talk page.
 * Remove it.
 * That's a formal Wikipedia guideline - I don't think there is any problem with simply deleting this content.


 * Well, I have work to do...the LHC turns on at some ungodly hour tomorrow and those tinfoil hats aren't going to make themselves!
 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And since the world will almost certainly end shortly after first beam - nice working with all of you! See you on the other side... :) Franamax (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion gives attention and reinforces boundary-testing behaviour. I'm with DuncanHill - we should just ignore weird-nonsense-but-not-outright-offensive questions. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's great, if everyone does it. Everyone will not do it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. Even if only partially followed, it is still a more effective policy than raising a four-alarm troll alert every time we are teased a little. Not as dramatic, though - I'll grant you that. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that four-alarm thing was pretty awesome. I particularly enjoyed the part where we rang the air raid siren and demanded action from everyone, because that was the only thing that stood between us and total destruction. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him/her. Seems a little late for that now that 3,325 words have been expended debating the issue. (And on the Entertainment desk alone there are currently seven totally unanswered questions.) The next best way to deal with a troll is to block/officially warn him/her. Has this been done?

Bradley10’s question may be unproductive, but calling it “total, utter, unadulterated crap” seems a little non productive too. . . Move on people. There’s nothing to see here. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that my suggestion was not for "normal removal", it was to adopt the strategy of silent and entire removal without subsequent discussion. This would be the method to adopt on the appearance of a disruptive poster, where there is general consensus that their posts are not productive. In the specific case above, if the poster continued in their useless activity, we would judge for ourselves in each case whether they were posing useful questions. If not, just remove the whole thing without comment (per Steve, WP:NONSENSE). This removes the validation the abuser/(troll) is seeking in the form of drama and excessive response (esp. on this page), instead there is the sound of nothing. Of course this should be reserved only for exceptional cases. Thankfully, the poster discussed above may already be on the path to improvement, and we won't have to test this course quite yet. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would effectively take the “fun” out of trolling, but I’m worried that we would be creating unsupervised blacklists of editors. That seems rather unwikipedic to me. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, but how do "we" achieve consensus without any discussion? -- LarryMac  | Talk  12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We haven’t (at least I certainly hope we haven’t). Franamax was simply proposing this idea for discussion as far as I know. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent a touch) Let's discuss this a little bit. This recent case is illustrative, but going forward let's talk about ZanyGuy1, who newly registers and starts posting a series of wacky RefDesk questions. What I'm saying is that it will take us some time to recognize that Zany is posing a persistent problem and sapping our resources trying to understand and answer his questions. We will of course discuss that here and sooner or later, some of us will start removing his posts and posting that here as well. Those removals will now themselves become the subject of debate, because ZanyGuy is a careful troll with mastery of borderline questions. That's all fairly normal RefStuff.
 * What I'm proposing that may be different is that there needs to be a line where we cease to give those normal courtesies. By reference to this thread above, it's clear that an editor exhausted the patience of many deskers. At this point, we should have the option of imposing a partial "ban" on questions - if a competent desker (yes, I know, how do you define that?) sees a new question from ZanyGuy and judges it as WP:NONSENSE, then it should be silently and entirely removed. No comment, no talk post. Blango - nothing happened, no troll is reinforced, no drama ensues.
 * Keep in mind that the wiki is always in flux, there are always a set of potential good RefDesk answerers who we could hook in to being regulars (I was in that situation much more recently than most of you, and I got hooked. Jury is still out on whether my answers are actually good or not - hmmm - but I'm still hooked!) We should keep in mind our responsibility to attract new answer-people, and part of that is to protect them from wasting their energy on trying to answer questions posed by people who don't care about the answer, they care only about the beauty of their troll-stion and the havoc it causes. Each of us regulars gets individually sucked in by some of the questions - which is why we need even more of a unified response when we finally realize we're getting played.
 * Now let's look at the downsides of this. Achieving consensus that we need to enact a "ban-with-individual-judgement-of-each-question-but-no-formal-review-of-each-judgement" is obviously problematic. Per Dedalus, where is the supervision? I would propose that since we are dealing with a very small number of potential "RD-judged-bans" (we're not that important to the wiki after all), we can track this by inspection of user contribs or persistent threads on this page. And as in the case above, since there should be no prejudice and the individual case is decided by consensus, if/when ZanyGuy starts making productive posts, none of us will be removing anything anymore - and if they stick around, we can better engage on their talk page anyway. In fact, let's say we name ZanyGuy1 as a bad RefPoster, we can have the rule that silent removals will be noted (but not commented on by others) on their talk page - a visible location for external review.
 * For perspective, and putting this in terms of "I" rather than "we" - I already have a mandate to silently remove RefDesk questions, if they come from Light current, 79.76.128/17 or whatever new user I feel fits the pattern. WP:RBI and I can use WP:ROLLBACK to do it, I don't have to ask and I don't have to post anything here. A banned user is a banned user. I wouldn't work that way, but there are precedents for non-tiptoeing-around-courtesy-actions based on community consensus - we can do the same here.
 * For gender-fairness, ZanyGirl1 did all that awful stuff too. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a Star Search Contestant
I hope this is the right area to post this question

I am trying to search for a person that was a contestant on Star Search (the American version). I am not 100% sure as to the year he was on, however I THINK he was on the Arsino Hall years. I do know this: He was in the singing competition.

His first name is Dan.

If memory serves me correct, his last name begins with a Y.

I don't think he went really far in the competition.

I do think he gave up his singing career to start up a business on a line of skincare product (not sure if it's male or female skincare products) in Los Angeles. That's about all I really know. Is there any way you can help?

Thanks. Worengo (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan. It'd be best if you posted this at the entertainment desk to get an answer. Bradley10 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the radar
Bowei Huang keeps coming – is it that he's accepted as a token religious debate organiser that he gets attention? Didn't swipe the question because too many good faith answers already. Persistent little s****r though, Julia Rossi (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured there was room for a reasonable discussion on that particular question when I weighed in on it. As best I can tell, the good-faith responses have also ignored his attempts to stir up real controversy.  &mdash; Lomn 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what makes T's so effective and feedable -- esp that this one has a mission. It's soapboxijng rather than controversy but who am I to go against feeding times at the corral/desk? Just gets confusing is all, when some are tackled for it and others not. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's either what makes him an excellent T*&£l, or an unusual character. The questions often contradict each other and question many religions. A bit "discussion-like" but not quie "soapbox-like". But anyhow, he should be at least chastised for bring up questions twice that were answered: (same as his current question, really). Fribbler (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Side comment because I don't frequent the religious questions (makes my brain hurt and I strangle all my pet rabbits :) - but that last thread was really engaged and fascinating. May have been a Txxx kicking it off, but I appreciate the privilege of reading the learned and thoughtful responses. We now return to our original programming... Franamax (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bowei Huang has a reputation for reposting questions many many times. --S.dedalus (talk)

RD/H removals
I've yanked two threads: I figure both are susceptible more to soapboxing than enlightening answers, thus the removal. I'm pointing the latter poster to the relevant article, though. &mdash; Lomn 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the first was a non-question with misleading dialog ("only three issues of disagreement"? no, only three issues shown)
 * the second being a "what do you think of homosexuality?" open question.


 * I agree and I can't help but wonder why everyone seems to have some best friends who are (fill in the minority group here). I swear, some of my best friends are idiots who post nonsense on Wikipedia, in case I'm offending someone here! --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's similar to I'm not racict but.....(racial stereotype/attack). Fribbler (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The header should have been left so the OP doesn’t wonder where his question went. Please replace it and add a note stating that the post was inappropriate for the desk and has been removed. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people really aren't racist (or whatever) but they have blind spots in certain specific areas of life. I remember my mother once saying to me "I'm certainly not a racist, but I'd be very unimpressed if one of your sisters announced she was marrying an aboriginal". Knowing her fairly well, I'd generally agree with the first part of her sentence. The second part was somewhat more contentious. We had a long discussion, and she came around to the argument that, while aboriginals are not inherently any worse or better than other people, experience shows that it's best to "stick to your own kind" (her words), because otherwise third parties would make it difficult for such a marriage to work. She, of course, wouldn't count herself as such a third party, which is her blind spot. Ah, mothers - what would we do without them? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a FAQ
"Is the world going to end in 2012? No.", that sort of thing (perhaps with a little more detail!). --Tango (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A little expansion at 2012 perhaps? DMacks (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the desks look like FAQ, then they pick up again. And I'd be sorry if people who just don't know about areas like that brush them off too quickly (though of course no is logically/rationally/naturalistically correct) then we'd miss out on answers like DMacks's. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * *blush* DMacks (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Last chance to search Times archive for free
Well, I have no idea about the best place to put this. Let me know if there is a better one. But I thought Reference Desk regulars might be interested that the Times archive - search the newspaper back to 1785 - won't be free access any more as of Friday, so this week is last chance to do research there without paying. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang. After all this time who put them up to the commerce-locked option other publications have? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply bizarre that a newspaper, one of the institutions that put the "public" in "publication", would decide to trawl its own history for profit.
 * Yet another argument to get more eyeballs onto the WP:LIBRARY, both asking and providing. We can overcome these restrictions by working together. Franamax (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently received an email from The Times inviting me to pay £75 to continue my registration. All I can do now is kick myself that I didn't spend every moment of the last few months reading every page in preparation for this moment!  What will I do now?  Sob sob. Gwinva (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who'd have thought it, Rupert Murdoch finding a way to make money. What a surprise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Foundation should pay the fee, then upload the whole shebang from 1785 to 1923 (or whatever the cutoff date is) to Wikisource. —Angr 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions about illegal things?
What do we do if there is a question asking for something illegal? For instance on the misc desk there is a person asking where he can watch a movie online, and linking to a site with a bunch of copyrighted movies saying he couldn't find it there. This is a small thing but would the same rules apply if someone asked where to buy a gun so he could shoot someone (and actually stated his intention), or where to hide a murder he just commited. All these things are probably illegal and I don't think we should answer questions relating to them, and possibly delete the question too? Gunrun (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To the first question, we generally rebuff such requests as a matter of personal ethics and professional courtesy, as the continued function and freedom of Wikipedia depends on the principles of copyright. For the policy wonks, the matter is explicitly mentioned on a few pages&mdash;Copyrights is on point: "...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."'


 * The others would probably deleted – unanswered – as trolling, though an enterprising soul might consider contacting local police. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maps for travelling in Britain
Who was the chap who wanted help finding maps for a holiday in Britain, and did he have a good trip? DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the question: . Fribbler (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Finetuning response to requests for medical advice?
I'm usually all for jumping at people that try to respond to requests for medical advice but in this specific case Reference_desk/Science permanent link I feel the responses were not only harmless but probably for the best. Hopefully people at least agree with me on the first point, do people also agree with me on the second point? P.S. I'm not complaining about the removal of the question, it just that Jd seem to disagree with the subsequent responses but I feel they've been fine. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first issue, the OP claims that they are afraid of going to a doctor for confidentiality reasons (obviously it's possible this is a troll) and a number of users have tried to allieviate this concern. I don't personally feel this counts as medical advice (or legal advice) and indeed I feel it's necessary under the circumstances. It's no point telling someone to see a doctor when they say "I don't want to because of X" and we don't actually address X.
 * Okay the second issue, I admit I looked at the original question before I posted about the OP should see a doctor before doing anything. I was just wondering what the question was and when I saw it, I felt it wise to respond to that specific issue (that the OP should see a doctor before doing anything not after). Note that I made no attempt to play down the issue, my message was clear, you need to see a doctor before doing anything (I also mentioned if they had done something they should still see a doctor since I didn't want to convey it was pointless seeing a doctor after you've done something). I would not have said, you don't need to see a doctor until after doing something even if I felt that was the case. While I appreciate it's a fine line, IMHO if based on the question, we feel it is necessary to emphasise or finetune the advice, this is acceptable provided we don't try and offer a diagnosis or playdown the issue. For example, if someone says "I'm having heart pains" (as IIRC someone did a few days ago) it's probably wise to say "go to an emergency department right now". If someone says "I have an ear ache" we would probably just say "see a doctor". Obviously this is to some extent diagnosing the problem which I get is a bad thing and it's possible the person with heart pains has just mistaken a gastric attack while the person with the ear ache has a brain aneurysm. And I agree, we should never say "I think the problem is serious" and especially "I don't think the problem is serious" nor should we say "the problem may be X".
 * Thanks Nil Einne, the thing is, the RD template is already advising the individual to go and see a qualified professional and so I just felt further responses telling the person to see a doctor were superflous. The only reason I replied further was because I felt the advise see a doctor was just getting pointlessly repeated.  I agree with your points though, sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to, just don't want people to waste there time needlessly.  Jdrewitt (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

School's back in session, etc.
No matter what they've been told, this place ain't it. Please discourage HW questions (not that they'll ever come looking back for an answer anyway). Just tell them apart and then deal with them appropriately (ignore). The way to knock down this crap is up to (individually) you. :) hydnjo talk 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I don't know about the other desks, but the Language desk hasn't been archived in forever. Isn't there a bot responsible for archiving? —Angr 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, after a three day hiatus, Scsbot showed up and archived everything it's responsible for except Language. The bot's manually invoked, so I suppose someone needs to poke Ummit. Algebraist 10:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay; I left a message at User talk:Scsbot (and saw that was where I left a message last time it happened!) The hiatus at WP:RD/L has been a lot longer than three or four days though. It dates back to September 3, 19 days ago, so it must be 12 days since it's been archived. —Angr 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. The bot's been issuing an error message for the past two weeks, but I mistakenly assumed it referred to the Humanities desk and was nonfatal.  I didn't notice that the Language desk wasn't getting archived at all, and I didn't realize that's what the error message really referred to.  Fixed now; belated Language desk archiving in progress complete.  Thanks for the prod, Algebraist and Angr. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions
At most how many questions at a time. Is this a place to ask all the random questions we want. User talkpage is only for people to talk about the works we have done.-- 57 Free  ways  01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can ask as many questions as you like, but keep in mind that this is a reference desk. It is not a discussion forum or an opinion survey.  Any question you ask should be a question specifically asking for a reference.  Otherwise, your questions will be ignored and, if you flood the reference desk with improper questions, it may be considered vandalism. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The RD is staffed by humans. It's not about rules and laws and strict limits.  It's much simpler than that: if you annoy us - we won't help you anymore.  Some people have a higher pain threshold than others - so being moderately annoying will result in you getting fewer decent answers and more annoyed responses.


 * So there is no hard limit - nor should there be. If your questions seem to be really good ones - things that make sense, that aren't trivial to answer, that aren't obviously impossible to answer - that you really might actually NEED the answer to - then people will keep answering them even if there were a half dozen a day.   If your questions are really dumb, annoying or don't have any obvious purpose - then we'll get upset even if there are only a couple of them a month!  For example - if you were to ask "What's the largest pizza ever made?" - we'd find out for you - it's an interesting question - there is an answer and we CAN find it given enough time and effort.  If you then asked (in quick succession) "What's the largest apple pie?", "What's the smallest pizza?", "What's the most pigs ever used in one pork pie?", "What's the biggest bowl of French Onion Soup?" ...and on and on like that - then it's pretty clear you don't really need the answers - or even particularly care about the answers are.  If it's bloody obvious that you're going to cease to care about the answer moments after reading it then I'm certainly not going to spend even 30 seconds of my free time answering it for you.  In those circumstances, it's very unfair to expect people to go off for twenty minutes searching books, and the encyclopedia, the web or whatever in order to come up with an answer that merely causes you to go "Huh...wow." and then you immediately go write another one - just because you can.


 * We just can't say this enough: "The reference desk is staffed by actual, real, lovable (mostly) human (mostly) beings."


 * So be reasonable. Save your 'karma' for the day when something really important needs to be known and you've done your best to figure it out yourself - shoot off a good question and we'll collectively spend HOURS combing the web and our personal libraries and memories.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Tag - removal
I just removed this tag on SciRef - in my view, RefDesk questions are never "resolved". Even if the OP is satisfied, the question is still out there and open to further comments and queries. Someone might come along who knows more about wheat straw than I do (which wouldn't be all that difficult) - I want to read that improved thread...

This is a first for me: do we put resolved tags on threads? Do we remove them? Franamax (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - the purpose of resolved is to prevent answerers from wasting time reading a question that already received a "satisfactory" answer. This would apply to very few RD questions and, in most cases, the more scrutiny answers get (especially the unsourced ones) the better it is for the OP. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've seen them on ref desk questions before. I haven't check the diffs to see if they were put on by the OP or by someone else, though. I'd be less inclined to remove it if it was the OP that placed it. —Angr 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) First, I would say that it's only appropriate for the OP who asked a question to insert a resolved tag (or maybe for someone else to do it if the OP explicitly wrote that their problem was resolved&mdash;something like "Thanks, that worked!"). Otherwise, it's presumptuous.
 * There are some questions, like a lot on the Computing desk, where "resolved" makes sense. Somebody has a specific problem, a solution is proposed, and the solution works.  The resolved tag makes sense to me here.  If somebody wants to elaborate after that point, they can, but they know it's probably not essential.  On the Science desk, however, I would say that most questions aren't so clearly open-and-shut... there's often a different way of explaining something, or a nuance that wasn't explored.  That seems to be what you're getting at.
 * I guess in the end, I'd personally let the OP add the tag or not. The existence of a resolved tag wouldn't shut me up if I had something more to add, anyway.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but if an OP has put resolved, I would take that as an indication that they're taking the RD off their watchlist now (if they're a logged-in user who isn't an RD regular) or that they're not coming back to look for more answers (if they're an anon). —Angr 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Just in case, I've restored the tag, as it was placed by the OP. I do see the utility on CompRef, where a specific problem can be resolved. I'm more doubtful on other desks, and especially SciRef. And in the particular case, there was 90 million tons of biomass hanging out there, unaccounted for and wandering about the universe - what if it all landed on the Large Hadron Collider? (Even if the LHC is underground, it could attract horses who would wander into the tunnels).
 * I'm really quite difficult to get shut up, but even I quailed on seeing that tick-mark. Luckily my inner loud-mouth prevailed and I spent 20 minutes doing research, then made a follow-up post. My concern is that someone with casual but accurate knowledge would see the tick-mark and move on.
 * So to simplify the question - is there any problem with removing the OP's "resolved" tag? - considering the general case where any random editor wishes to see more input. Franamax (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the OP has added a "resolved" tag to their own question they are saying they have received what they wanted, and thank you. To remove that strikes me as rude. Certainly people can continue to add to the answer if they wish, but removing the tag when the OP added it leaves a bitter taste for me. It also seems to place the need of the answerers to answer in supreme position. 79.66.84.84 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions headed "Question"
OK, that’s it, I’ve had enough. I’ve now seen one question too many headed "Question", so I’ve decided to leave Wikipedia (just as soon as I can get around to finishing off my To Do list and fixing all the errors and gaps in all our existing 2,000,000+ articles).

Our instructions say:


 * "Include a title and a question. It is easier for our volunteers if question formatting is consistent".

Including a title is fine as far as it goes, but we need more than just any old title. We need a meaningful title. Can this be changed to something like:


 * "Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful.  A word or two that briefly tells us what the subject of the question is would be acceptable.  However, questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers absolutely no idea what the question is about.  Such titles should be avoided."   --  JackofOz (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'd say make an request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CM. I'll do just that.  Btw, how did you know of the existence of that page?  There seem to be a lot of pages that are known only to a select coterie of initiates sworn to silence.  Until one asks a question like this; and only then is their existence revealed.  If I may paraphrase Jim Hacker, I don't know what I don't know, so can someone please tell me what I ought to know so that I can at least know what it is I don't know?  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the [ref deskers] perhaps felt the information [they] needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed." (The Tangled Web) Gwinva (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, "Yes, Gwinva". :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have basically two options: you can either start at Reference desk/header (the thing that's actually directly transcluded onto the desks) and fight your way through the maze of transclusions, or you can try to find the one you want at Special:Prefixindex. Algebraist 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I must be missing something very basic. I did what Confusing Manifestion suggested, but that page (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask) seems to be rarely edited, and it's gone nowhere so far.  The wording in our instructions isn't set in stone; I know for a fact it has changed over the years.  There must be a simple and transparent process whereby users who wish to suggest changes to the wording can make those suggestions, they get discussed, and then, if there's a consensus, the change is simply made by whoever has authority to change it.  Is this not the case?  If not, why not, and can such a process be initiated? --  JackofOz (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be much of a process. If there's no objection here, I'll make the change. But please specify the name of the template that needs to be changed, and the exact wording. If there's an objection, it can be changed back. The only reason for protection is to avoid vandalism, which this isn't. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you've got me. I know next to nothing about templates.  All I know is that at the head of every Ref desk (science, language, ....) there's a list of dos and dont's.  These include: "Include a title and a question. It is easier for our volunteers if question formatting is consistent".  I'd like to suggest those words be replaced by:
 * Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful.  A word or two that briefly tells us what the subject of the question is would be acceptable.  However, questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers no idea what the question is about.  Such titles should be avoided.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it. It turns out not to be a template, but a page: Reference desk/header/howtoask. I've changed it the page, but I couldn't resist shortening it a bit, to "Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful.  A word or two that briefly tells us the subject of the question would be very helpful.  Questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers no idea what the question is about.  Such titles should be avoided.  ". Let me know if I screwed up. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nunh-huh. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout :)  I have no objections to your minor change. Others may have something to say, though, and I anticipated all along that this proposal would be commented on prior to the change being implemented.  My suggestion was just that - a suggestion - and I'm sure the sense of what I had in mind could have been better expressed through the combined efforts of various users.  So, while I'm happy with the outcome on this occasion, wouldn't it be better, generally speaking, to gain agreement here first, rather than putting through a wording change only to have to ask if a mistake was made, or only to have to change it back because of an objection?  That seems the usual way with WP guidelines, policies etc.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nothing as serious as a guideline or a policy. It's just a page that's protected against vandalism. Anyone who wants to suggest any further changes, just do it here; I'll implement any changes that there's general agreement for. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks that an anon's behavior can be changed by re-wording our boilerplate is nuts! -hydnjo talk 04:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahh, of the 10 bullet points on howtoask, at least 8 are ignored with regularity. It's so much easier to click that "+" button. However, good effort - 3 out of 10 people will read it, 1 out of 10 will heed it - so it's an improvement. Franamax (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed the templates weren't even protected until a certain vandal with an unhealthy infactuation with a female singer showed up Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) This isn't about expecting anyone will change, hydnjo. (There was another question yesterday titled "Question!", and I was sorely tempted to ask if they'd read the instructions, but I quickly realised the answer would have been "no".) Franamax has it about right for the proportion of users who'll ever take notice of this. Which has always been the case. But if we're going to have dos and dont's at all, we should aim for continuous improvement. We can hardly expect our users to abide by them if we never pay any attention to them ourselves. I have a brilliant idea: we could require them to tick a box agreeing to abide by our terms and conditions before getting to ask their question. Even better, have a separate box with each point. On second thoughts, maybe not ... :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For a great display of how well people read instructions, check out Your first article. It is absolutely littered with warnings, visible and hidden in the edit-box text that this is not the place to actually create your first article. Then check out the edit history.
 * However, if there's a way to shorten and simplify the RefDesk preambles, that would increase the odds of people actually reading them. Just like those T&C boxes, if they're tl;dr, you tick the button anyway and claim fair-use afterwards. People are goal-oriented, not detail-oriented, so if there's a way to simplify the detail, we should try it. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite having just successfully managed to increase the wording, I agree with you, Franamax. Btw, what's tl;dr?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary: tl;dr. We've got answers for everything! :) Franamax (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Me, I've decided to be "pro-active" (a word that gives me a rash, but it seems to fit here) and just start re-naming questions titled "Question" to something else. —Angr 07:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. If someone does not take the time to give their question a title, then there are probably not very invested in the question title. Thus we should feel pretty free to change it for the purposes of organization, clarity, etc. If the OP objects, they can come up with their own descriptive title! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shortening and simplifying the RefDesk preambles
Starting a new section to make the discussion easier to find, but following on Franamax's helpful comments above. What if we make the language goal-oriented? To increase the chances of it being read. Here's an opening suggestion (that also shortens). Even if questioners only read the bold and italics parts, it could help. (I'm not a formatting expert) (PS. don't know how to get the tildes showing without it signing my name again :) WikiJedits (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will my question be answered here?
 * Most likely yes, if it is about something not yet in Wikipedia. The reference desk helps with questions that you can't answer elsewhere. (Please search first: type your question in box to the left. Wikipedia may already have the answer.)
 * Most likely no, if it is a homework question. The reference desk will not do your homework. But if you show that you have tried solving the problem first, we will try to help you past the stuck point.
 * Definitely not, if it is a medical or legal question. Requests for medical or legal advice will/may be removed. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
 * Definitely not, if it is an opinion, not a question. Do not start debates. The reference desk is not a soapbox.

How do I word my question for the best results?
 * Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a word or two that briefly tells the volunteers the subject of the question.
 * Be specific. Clearly state your question.
 * Include context. Include links to any information that might help to understand your question. Tell us what part of the world your question applies to, especially if it deals with local or national issues.
 * Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed.
 * Type ~ (four tildes) at the end of your question. This signs your contribution so volunteers know who wrote what in the conversation.
 * Choose one section of the reference desk only and post there only. Thanks.

When will I get an answer?
 * It may take up to four days. Come back later and check for responses. Questions are answered on the same page on which they were asked. Later posts may add more information.

''Ready? After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here''.


 * I like it. And I fixed the tildes issue. Okay, you wimped out a bit on the "search first" injunction, which now dangles unattractively at the end of the first instruction. But with that aside, it works for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also like it. I think OPs would be more likely to read this. Not sure about the "Thanks" though. Btw, we say "make the title meaningful" twice currently. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should include, along with don't leave an email or phone number, "You will not receive an answer via email or phone. You must return to this page to get your answer." --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it very much, WikiJedits. It's a great improvement. My only comments are:
 * the word "solve", in relation to homework. That would apply to maths and physics questions, but not to essays, research tasks etc.  How about "But if you show that you have attempted the problem first ..."?
 * I see no need to link the word "Wikipedia" in the first point. They're already in the site.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the questions we get? It is hard to believe that they all know they are at Wikipedia.  I often wonder how some of the questioners were able to get to the reference desk.  Then, I'm reminded that on the Internet, it is still 1993. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, very true. I was a regular user for about three months before I was ever aware there was any such thing as a Ref desk here.  If I had wanted to ask a non-WP question, I probably would have looked elsewhere on the web (which is a great way of getting on the internet, by the way).  Then when I stopped being a regular user, I took up Wikipedia.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: It was over 6 months.  I made my first edit on 8 December 2003, and used the site every day thereafter, but my first foray into the Ref desk was not until this edit on 15 June 2004.  I have no idea how I stumbled on the Ref desk, but it seems I'm here to stay now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked with the great suggestions so far. Thanks everyone! More time/comments though, before we ask Nunh-huh to implement? What are your feelings on medical/legal advice - will be removed or may be removed (current reading)? WikiJedits (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will my question be answered here?

 * Most likely yes, if it is about something not yet in Wikipedia. (Please search first: type your question in box to the left. Wikipedia may already have the answer.)
 * Most likely no, if it is a homework question. The reference desk will not do your homework. But if you show that you have attempted the question first, we will try to help you past the stuck point.
 * Definitely not, if it is a medical or legal question. Requests for medical or legal advice will/may be removed. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
 * Definitely not, if it is an opinion, not a question. Do not start debates. The reference desk is not a soapbox.

How do I word my question for the best results?

 * Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a word or two that briefly tells the volunteers the subject of the question.
 * Be specific. Clearly state your question.
 * Include context. Include links to any information that might help to understand your question. Tell us what part of the world your question applies to, especially if it deals with local or national issues.
 * Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You will not receive an answer via email or phone. You must return to this page to get your answer.
 * Type ~ (four tildes) at the end of your question. This signs your contribution so volunteers know who wrote what in the conversation.
 * Choose one section of the reference desk only and post there only.

When will I get an answer?
'''Ready? After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here'''.
 * It may take up to four days. Come back later and check for responses. Questions are answered on the same page on which they were asked. Later posts may add more information.


 * I'd like to change the text in regard to titles from "a word or two" to "a word or three" since many titles are only useful with several words.


 * I also have issues with the text "(Please search first: type your question in box to the left. Wikipedia may already have the answer.)" Here the problem is partly that the search results (e.g. for "how many protons in an oxygen atom") are poorly formatted - there's so much rubric at the top of the results screen that one could be forgiven for missing links to articles lower down. The second problem is that they're often as well advised to google for the information they're after. So we should encourage them to search, but with different wording. Starting suggestion would be "Please search first: many questions can be answered by a simple google search. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in wikipedia".


 * If we adopt a new sentence for search, we might want to take that sentence and the sentence about asking only on one page and put them into their own sub-section with a heading such as "What else?". Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the words "most likely yes" in answer to "Will my question be answered here?". I think this is overly optimistic, since there are many legitimate questions that are never answered, simply because none of the regulars here knows the answer.  I would suggest "probably" instead of "most likely". --Richardrj talkemail 14:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A good point but then we'll have "Definitely not", "Most likely not" and "Probably" as answers to the question: "Will my question be answered here?". Hardly inspires hope. Besides, I don't think we need to be that rigorous here (as long as we don't misrepresent our ability to answer questions correctly). It's not a big deal though. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this then, in place of "Will my question be answered here? (I've added a couple of more items; I could have added even more, but these seem to cover the bulk of the issues):

When will I NOT get an answer to my question?
-- JackofOz (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could easily have found the answer yourself by searching. Wikipedia may already have the answer you want, so please use the search box (to the left). A search engine such as Google may also be useful.  If Wikipedia has the answer but it is not easily locatable, we will help you by providing a link.
 * If it is a homework question. The reference desk will not do your homework for you. But if you show that you have attempted the question first, we will try to help you past the stuck point.
 * If you are seeking personal medical or legal advice. Requests for medical or legal advice will be removed in most cases. You need to seek advice from a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
 * If you say you are considering suicide or self-harm. We cannot help you.  Even if we could, we have no way of knowing whether you are serious or not.  You need to talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor.
 * If the real purpose of your post is to express an opinion. An opinion couched in the form of a question will be seen for what it is. Do not start debates.  Do not post diatribes.  The reference desk is not a soapbox.
 * If you are asking for a prediction. The reference desk cannot tell you who will win an election, award, sporting event, etc., and we will not even tell you who we think will win


 * BEANS! WP:BEANS! I think in a desire to be rigorous we are moving away from the simplicity and usefulness of the original scheme. I like the suggested goal-oriented reworking, but I think the above When will I not get an answer section starts to move away from this by suggesting what not to do rather than what to do. And it gives lovely detailed breakdowns of the things we don't want, which is great for more experienced and altruistic users such as ourselves; newbies looking for a way to get started or those with less pure intentions will react differently. 130.88.52.36 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "express an opinion" should be "express an opinion or request opinions". We get lots of questions that aren't stating an opinion themselves but are just asking for our opinions. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Third version. Good points about the "don't do this" section! Would this fix the concerns? It stays with a goal-oriented question but tries to approach the don'ts as positives – what to *do* in these situations. It also doesn't promise there will be an answer. And the search first is back to the beginning. Could anything else be shortened or omitted? (For example: is the suicide instruction really necessary? Does this ever happen? And does it create liability to have it in the instructions. My own vote is to omit it.) WikiJedits (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes indeed. It hasn't happened for a while now, but there was a period about 18 months ago when we had a spate of them, some of which sounded genuine.  This led to quite a heated debate about how to handle such posts.  It started at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 2, then moved to Wikipedia talk:Responding to suicidal individuals.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way I can get a faster answer?

 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this. Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
 * Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.
 * The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
 * (If you are considering suicide or self-harm, please talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor, or call a hotline.)

How do I word my question for the best results?

 * Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question.
 * Include context. Include links to any information that might help to understand your question. Tell us what part of the world your question applies to.
 * Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You must return to this page to get your answer.
 * Type ~ (four tildes) at the end of your question. This signs your contribution so volunteers know who wrote what in the conversation.
 * If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you.

When will I get an answer?
'''Ready? After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here'''.
 * It may take up to four days. Come back later and check this page for responses. Later posts may add more information. Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk.


 * I don't see the point in specifying four days. Most questions seem to get a response within a few hours, especially if it's a proper question. Once a day or two has passed, most questions (it seems to me) will either have been resolved, be part of a thriving discussion, or two days into an eternity of emptiness in which no hope may grow. When will you get an answer? When someone feels like replying! Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Explicitly specifying four days has always struck me as silly and overspecific. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Four days is about the time it takes for a question to have scrolled so far up the page that nobody is reading it anymore. At that point, it's "done" whether we got there or not.  However, it's not at all uncommon for it to take that long for a decent answer to emerge.  I think four days is about right and to be fair it does say UP TO four days...meaning that it could be faster.  The point here is that people shouldn't get impatient after just one or two days. SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does read that, no matter how long it takes, an answer will eventually be forthcoming. But that's often not true.  There's usually at least some degree of engagement with the question - comments, guesses, or clarifying questions we ask of the questioner.  These might fall into the grab-bag of "answer"; they're certainly responses.  But even after such engagement, often we still can't come up with the goods, maybe because it's too obscure or for other reasons.  And there are some (non-trollish) questions that never get any responses whatsoever.  Like this one, for example.  I asked that question, which is why I was able to locate it for this example, but there have been many others.  Is there any value in mentioning that in some cases an answer to a serious question simply isn't known and therefore can't be provided?  Or change the heading to "When will I get a response?"?--  JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate search avenues
Because of WP's spotty indexing perhaps we should suggest other search methods such as Google's WP specific or even the clever WikiWax search for when you can't think of the whole title. Oops, that would make the intro l-o-n-g-e-r, never mind. -hydnjo talk 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not our business here to tell people how to search Wikipedia. It is sufficient for us to tell them that they should do so...there are plenty of other places they can go for more information on HOW to do that search. SteveBaker (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on latest version
I really like this. Three clear goal-oriented questions, most main points covered in clear, fairly positive language. I think this is much more likely to be read and followed than the current blurb.

The 'four days' thing, while oddly specific, does at least give people an idea of a cutoff point beyond which they can be fairly sure their question isn't going to be answered, and hopefully minimises the expectation of an immediate response. If we give an immediate response, then it's a pleasant surprise :)

The suicide/self-harm thing I'm torn on, but would probably lean towards not including. When we had a run on this, I think that was due to the nature of these things. (You get one and that sparks others; these things are highly susceptible to such sparking) I think including it would probably increase the number of queries we received on it, but on the other hand might nudge some people towards calling someone. Ambivalence.

So yeah, loving this version. Can we go with it? 130.88.64.167 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Every extra point we make makes it that much longer and therefore makes OPs less likely to read it at all. So to me, less is more. But I do like Jack's "When will my question not be answered" approach. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shorter! --Sean 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a final consensus version? Shall we do this or discuss it more? - Nunh-huh 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing it works for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah okay, it's been a week and no one proposed a new one. Let's go with the third version. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But maybe take up the suggestion that we talk about "a number of days" not "four days" in the "when will my q be answered?" --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Any problems or requested changes, just let me know. - Nunh-huh 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked this on the talk page of the template itself - but I'll ask again here. Can we please have something that tells people to come back regularly to see if there has been a request for clarification about their question. So often someone will ask something - but leave out some small but uber-critical detail that means that we just can't answer it. We ask for that clarification - but very often (much more than 50% of the time I'd say) - we don't get a response. SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always had a suspicion that most anon/newbie posters never come back for their answer anyway...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version says; "Come back later and check this page for responses. Later posts may add more information. " If you want some other wording, please suggest the actual wording you want. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical advice removed
I've removed this suggestion by Dmcq as I felt it clearly violated the "no medical advice" dictum. The suggestion the OP may have worms is perhaps already getting a bit borderline but given the existing discussion I was planning to let it stand until I noticed he/she was basically suggesting the OP self-diagnose which IMHO is clearly going too far. I've left the question and other answers for now although as I suggested in my response, I feel it's really a question for medical advice and personally won't object if someone else removes it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No particular objection to removal as part of the general principle but I think you should probably remove all the discussion including the reference to the article. As to worms requiring medical advice they don't need it. Self diagnosis is easy and no prescription is needed, not doing this is just wasting a doctors time. Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)