Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 56

Links to RD's in other languages.
We had a question today where the OP requested the answer in Dutch. It occurred to me that there is likely to be a WP:RD on the Dutch Wikipedia - but not knowing even a single word in that language - I had no idea how to find it. (Someone did subsequently provide a link). We get quite a lot of questions from people who's command of English is poor - who would presumably benefit from being able to find an RD in their own language. It would be useful to collect together links to all of the other WP:RD's as a set of links in a panel over to the left - just like a regular article has links to articles in other languages. With some sort of a hint in the RD banner to point people to these other resources. Is this possible? How would we find all of the other RD's? We could presumably gain some benefit from having the other RD's link to each other too. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, if you go to the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk there is a list of other language variants of the reference desk. This is included in the Reference desk header template. I include the list below for convenience.

ar:ويكيبيديا:أسئلة bg:Уикипедия:Бюро „Справки“ ca:Viquipèdia:Taulell de consultes cy:Wicipedia:Y Desg Cyfeirio de:Wikipedia:Auskunft es:Wikipedia:Consultas fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز مرجع fr:Wikipédia:Oracle hi:विकिपीडिया:रेफ़रन्स डेस्क id:Wikipedia:Meja referensi it:Wikipedia:Oracolo he:ויקיפדיה:הכה את המומחה ja:Wikipedia:ヘルプデスク mk:Википедија:Биро за консултации nl:Wikipedia:Informatiebalie no:Wikipedia:Biblioteket pl:Wikipedia:Pytania merytoryczne ru:Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро sl:Wikipedija:Orakelj fi:Wikipedia:Neuvonta sv:Wikipedia:Faktafrågor th:วิกิพีเดีย:ปุจฉา-วิสัชนา tl:Wikipedia:Konsultasyon tr:Vikipedi:Referans Masası vi:Wikipedia:Bàn tham khảo zh:Wikipedia:詢問處


 * Jdrewitt (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! So there is! I so rarely visit the main page...could this maybe be added to the sub-pages. Even if there isn't an outer-mongolian Science desk - a link to their general desk would be good. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The simplest thing would be to put the interwikis in Reference desk/header. It's fullprotected, though. Algebraist 15:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that solution. Regarding Steve's comment, I don't think we even want to try to link to the correct subpages on other Wikipedias.  Suppose the Elbonian Wikipedia has three sub-Desks right now: Science, Humanities, and Misc.  Where would we point the interwiki from our Math Desk?  Science, or Misc.?  And what do we do when they create a Math Desk of their own?  I imagine that few of us are active on the Elbonian Wikipedia, so we'd just keep blithely misdirecting math queries to their Science Desk.  For that matter, I can see someone for whom English is not their first language starting from the wrong page here, and thereby following an incorrect interlanguage link.


 * The question of subpages appears moot for the moment, though &mdash; I think only the enwiki Desks get enough traffic to require subdivision by subject. That does bring up another concern &mdash; we may inadvertently be directing people to black holes where their questions never receive an answer.  Where possible, I would encourage all of our multilingual Deskers to look in on the other-language Desks from time to time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Or at least we should try to answer the question as thoroughly as possible here and refer them to the other language desk only an as option that they might get more information, or a translation into their required language there. We shouldn't use referal to the other language desks as a substitute to answering the question as best we can. Having said this, in the specific case that led to this discussion the OP was requesting veternary medical advice and so it wasn't really appropriate for us to give an answer. I do also agree with Steve that the language links should be added to each sub page. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree. Any time we can help, we should.  But where a non-English Ref Desk might result in a faster, clearer response (or, for that matter, a clearer, more detailed statement of the question) we shouldn't hesitate to mention that option to the original poster.
 * On an alternative tack, do we have any tools or central location for keeping track of which English Ref Desk regulars speak other languages, and would such a resource be useful? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re subdivision by subject: The Spanish refdesk has two sections, the main page(es:Wikipedia:Consultas)for general questions, anda subpage for questions on correct usage of Spanish (es:Wikipedia:Consultas_lingüísticas). The general section links to the Spanish language section, so a link to the main page should be adequate. --NorwegianBluetalk 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Best and Affordable SEO Serivces
I removed this. SN0WKITT3N 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good move. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's an obvious ad. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice
I have reremoved this request for medical advice, which the OP readded in this edit. The first edit indicated a concern about it being cancerous, and I feel that despite rewording, this is most certainly a request for medical advice. Therefore, I have removed subsequent answers and the question. Are there any objections to this action? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No objections, but it was a good call to inform all the people who answered. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call. I don't know if the OP realised this but I'm guessing most people (definitely me) when they saw the second version thought the OP was referring to slight differences in shape or size not strange lumps. If the OP really has developed a suddent interest in human facial symmetry they could always ask their doctor when they visit them about the lumps anyway Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries with me. I just thought it was a general anatomy question, though. However, with the word 'my' in the title, in retrospect, it would seem to show a concern, which, of course, should be discussed with a professional.--KageTora (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not object, and I appreciate the notice. I did not go back to look at the first version, just responded to the second.  --Scray (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear, I'm not accusing anyone of anything :) I only noticed because I reverted the first diff, if I'd had just seen the second I probably would have answered also. Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call - this is the system working at its' best. SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original removal, but would have kept the revised version in. If the OP is able to reformulate a Q so it's no longer a request for medical advice, I say we should answer it. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even when it's blatantly just a way to get round the original rejection? The OP is still asking for the same information, but takes out the worrying about it being cancerous/harmful in any way. It's clear that the OP is still concerned about that issue, and therefore should take it to a health professional. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We frequently get combo questions, some portion of which are medical advice Q's and some portion of which are not. If the OP is good enough to remove the medical advice portion, I see no prob with answering the rest.  They've gone out of their way to comply with our rules, so should be rewarded for the effort. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP didn't go out of their way to comply the rules. They completely ignored them, then when this was pointed out, made a half-hearted attempt to comply, but didn't even bother to discuss it with anyone before re-posting the question. In any case, I still think the best thing would be for the OP to tell us what the doctor says about whether adams apples should be perfectly symmetrical when they ask while visiting about the lump Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I simply cannot ignore the OP's original question, to me it's clear that whatever advice we give to that person on this topic will be helping to answer the original concern, which we can't do. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nil Einne and Cyclonenim here. Adhering to the letter of the 'no medical advice' guideline isn't supposed to be an obstacle we try to work around.  This isn't a game we're playing, to defeat the evil, bureaucratic, uptight, clipboard-wielding admins.  As I see it, the reason why we don't give our amateur responses to requests for medical advice is to reduce the risk of harm (physical, emotional, or legal) to everyone involved.
 * Our response to a clear request for medical advice – which this, I think everyone agrees, was – has to be a clear referral to a qualified professional. Encouraging the OP or other responders to hunt for semantic loopholes does a disservice to everyone involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed religious stuff
Diff I removed what appeared to be a rambling 'proof' of Islam. Feel free to restore if you feel I have misjudged this; I think it looks like trouble. Tschüss. 79.66.57.25 (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Nothing there for the Science Desk to answer. Maybe Humanities or Language. Franamax (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There were some points that could be (and were) answered scientifically, like the development of a fetus and the sensitivity of burnt skin. The part that bothered me about the Q was the "this is the truth, I dare you to deny it !" attitude, rather than the more helpful "is this true ?" attitude.  If they had come to use with "This is a 'proof' I've heard of Islam, is it scientifically valid ?", I'd be more inclined to answer.  Still, it is perhaps more important to expose those who distrust science to it than those who already trust it.  So, on balance, I'd leave it in unless they came back with the same attitude again toward responders.  If they had a history of trolling, then I'd be less patient.  StuRat (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the guy was trolling as much as he was soapboxing -- he came off as someone who really thought he had stumped us with something clever, and he wanted people to agree with his agenda -- and if he'd kept it more general, he might've done better with that, but he had some pretty serious misconceptions there. Maybe he knows Qu'ran very well, but he really didn't know a whole lot about the history of medicine or human physiology. Personally, in cases like this, I prefer to lay out some facts, simply because it improves the chances of someone actually being disabused of their misconceptions -- if not the original poster, then perhaps someone else. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "A few inches of snow"
I reverted this edit because it didn't seem justified (WP:AGF) and no justification was provided here. Sure the question has some ranting, but it doesn't appear overly disruptive, and there are a couple good responses concerning the estimation of "GDP loss". –  7 4   09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That one should have stayed removed. The runup to the "question" was undoubtedly a rant - there was no question as to how or why a country might not be prepared for snowfall. And the "question" was a soapbox - "...who on earth believes...?" And there were no good answers, good answers would deal with how economic losses are estimated. Bad question, bad reversion. Franamax (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If every editor started immediately removing questions that they personally thought were "bad" the reference desk would devolve into an edit-warzone. Immediate deletion (the RD version of "Speedy Deletion") should only be applied to clear-cut violations (medical advice, personal attacks, advertisement, nonsense, etc.). If an editor personally feels that a question is "bad" then the best course of action would be to ignore it, or to start a discussion here to achieve consensus for its removal. It's a big world; a question that is valueless for one editor may be valuable to others in the community. –  7 4   18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have kept the Q. Sure, there was some ranting in there, but you could sift through it all to get to a reasonable question: "How can they quickly and accurately predict economic losses from snow storms ?" StuRat (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The effect of a minor snowfall on a major city transport system seems a very appropriate subject. Ref Desk is not censored to prevent discussion of something embarrassing to officials somewhere. We have articles on FEMA failures after hurricanes, for instance. Edison (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussions are not the province of the Ref Desks and articles are something else completely. If the OP had walked up to a reference desk in a library and started in on his/her diatribe, he/she would surely have been asked to leave the premises and return if/when a question could be asked in a reasonable tone of voice.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The ranting was inappropriate, but there was a good question in there somewhere. I think removing the whole thing is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water - you could carefully trim the rant, but I see little point. Just leave it there. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that a baby is something important while his question was a flimsy excuse to sound off. Removing his rant is more like throwing the soap scum out with the bath water. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His question was important to him (hence him asking it) and it was a legitimate question. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean we shouldn't answer it. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Soapboxing, again ("What parts of the constitution overrules the Ten Commandments?")
I'm getting a bit sick of soapboxing trolls like the one who has just posted a diatribe about the Ten Commandments on the Humanities desk. Why has the admonition not to use the Ref Desk as a soapbox been removed from the guidelines, and can we do something about putting it back? Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do trolls read admonitions? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not. But by that token, we might as well not have any guidelines there. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But the information in the header is not aimed at trolls. It is aimed at good faith questioners who need to know how to use the refdesk. Algebraist 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should put instructions for trolls at the bottom of the page, under a bridge? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced it was soapboxing. And, even if so, it certainly isn't the type of thing that's so dangerous to the Ref Desk that it must be unilaterally deleted without consensus.  You should have discussed it here, first, before this deletion.  You didn't provide a diff, so here's one .  Also, please use neutral titles for section names here.  I changed this one to be neutral (neither saying that it is or isn't soapboxing, but just that the question exists).  Further, please include the title of the original Q and provide a link from there to the discussion here.  I will take care of all that this time.  Now, please present your argument as to why this is "soapboxing". StuRat (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with StuRat; this may be soapboxing, but I don't think that's a matter for any one editor to decide. Allowing editors to summarily remove content that they don't personally agree with is a slippery slope that leads to anarchy. –  7 4   23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The post was mostly a (derivative) essay. The fact that the essay ended in a question doesn't make it any less a case of soapboxing. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's like the People's Front of Judea round here. "Right. This calls for immediate discussion." WP:BOLD is perfectly applicable here.
 * The longer a post like that is left up, the more it seems to anyone that visits the page that it's acceptable to use the Ref Desk as a discussion forum or a place to repost political soapboxing that you've half-inched off some blog. It's clearly not the purpose of the Reference Desk, and such a lengthy diatribe has no place being there.
 * I can't really see how you can claim that this is anything other than a man using the Ref Desk as a public space to air his opinions, in this case on the separation of state and church. The sentences which end in question marks are not requests for factual information, they are invitations to join in a discussion. This is not an appropriate place for such a discussion.
 * As for providing a "diff", I haven't the first clue how to go about doing so, so thank you for doing it for me. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How to provide a diff:


 * 1) Right after you make a change, go to the "history" tab at the top of the page.


 * 2) Your change should be at or near the top. Pick "prev" in front of that change.


 * 3) The "diff" will then be displayed. Copy the address into the buffer.  The address is at the top of the page.  Highlight it with the mouse and use  to cut it into the text buffer.


 * 4) Come here and do a to paste it here.  Put single square brackets around it and appropriate text to explain what it is. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for non-consensus removals, this should only be done when it's absolutely clear that a consensus for removal would have occurred, had you waited for one to develop. That's not clear at all here, so you should have posted first. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for whether this Q was soapboxing, it seems legit to ask which of the 10 Commandments could Constitutionally be made into US laws, and it's also legit for the OP to tell us his thinking on the Q (for homework Q's, we even require this). I see no problem with it. StuRat (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RD header modifications
Right, this all seems to have got rather sidelined, so I'll ask again. What happened to the guideline that read "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The Reference Desk is not a soapbox"? And can we put it back? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question, this change, presumably inspired by this discussion, removed the diatribe line from the header. To answer your second question, in my opinion the replacement text: "'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.'" is clearer and more helpful, and should be retained. Finally, the text in the header is not a guideline in the Policies and guidelines sense, and should not be used as justification for removal of posts (see Reference desk/Guidelines instead). –  7 4   15:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (added subsection title)


 * Could this (persistent) type of issue be addressed with a set of templates that can be used to flag a Q or discussion as problematic, so that RD regulars (and others) have reason to think twice before answering? Just thinking out loud.  --Scray (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. Here's an attempt at a "content" notification template (with matching homework and removal templates):


 * I think an appropriate content notification box would prove a valuable intermediate step between ignoring a borderline question and deleting it outright. –  7 4   14:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice!! I really like these, except that they are larger than might be necessary.  Is there a way to make them much smaller?  Any box will attract attention, and get the point across without shouting.  Sorry I don't know much about such boxes.  --Scray (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the text/image could be shrunk a little more, they currently match default article message boxes. I don't think the boxes are outrageously large, and the fact that they are easy to identify means that seasoned contributors can easily skip the text without missing the intent. I suppose, as official RD templates, user preferences could be configured to shrink/remove the boxes. –  7 4   16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the "Resolved" box and some other small boxes I've seen. They are very noticeable, but don't glare.  I agree with Tango's reply (below) that I would feel bitten if I saw such a big box in response to my first post on the RD. --Scray (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think labeling a question as [[Image:Red question mark.svg|20px]] Problematic  would be less bitey because the box is smaller? I would personally think it more so because it appears brusque and final, with no hope of review. Anyway, I think we can safely answer your original question at this point: there seems to be little interest in a set of templates and even less agreement on how such templates should appear. –   7 4   01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your final statement here. RD regulars are like doctors - you ask 3 of them a question and you get 4 opinions. ;-)  --Scray (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea, I'm a little concerned it might end up being a bit too bitey, though. --Tango (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think having one's question disappear entirely would be much more irritating than an informational, neutrally-worded template that invites them to discuss the matter. It may also help to side-step responses like this. I did remove some platitudes from the dyoh (homework) template (to try to keep the box size reasonable), but the wording is negotiable. –  7 4   16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Science desk: Jupiter/Saturn/Colo(u)r guy
Since it appears others' patience with IP 69.x.y.z is wearing thin, I'll note that it's blocked User:Freewayguy (compare with contribs like ). He was blocked specifically for mainspace disruption, so I've not noted his actions here since he's avoided mainspace. I figure at this point it's worth bringing forward to get opinions on whether this particular obsession is rising to disruption in its own right. &mdash; Lomn 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I recognised the style and subject of the questions... I hadn't realised who it was. We're not going to get anywhere with this guy (who is a native English speaker, just a terrible one), and his "contributions" in no way benefit the project or its goals. I don't know any specific policy being violated (I don't think he's acting in bad faith, I think he's just a complete idiot), but we could act under IAR. However, it's a pretty wide IP range, I think (I haven't actually gone through and seen how wide), so a range block may not be appropriate. Shall we just remove all further questions from him without comment? --Tango (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a perfectly reasonable solution. &mdash; Lomn 16:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Algebraist 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=268717847&oldid=268717394 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.126.244 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem is Learning disability, also calling me an idiot is uncivil. This is why modern kids don't care about studing and their grades anymore. Just as long as thiey get at least a "C" they are happy. --69.229.108.39 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If your account is blocked, you shouldn't be here evading it by editing as an IP. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Over time people grows up, and starts to things things more serious than they used to.--69.229.108.39 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Appealing a block. I'm not familiar with the circumstances but I notice that you have already had three unblock requests declined on the User:Freewayguy account. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia without being blocked on sight when your identity becomes apparent, the next step is to contact Arbcom directly and make an appeal. Continued block evasion does not help your case. Really, it doesn't. No matter how much you want to carry on contributing here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thinkg is my talkpage over my account is protected, so I can't make anymore unblocking request. I have demonstrated I will be able to be careful and slow while editing. What you mean by contact the guy for unblocking. Which person?--69.229.108.39 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, and I've unprotected the talk page. However, the expectation remains that the unblock template should not be abused.  Repeated use, if an unblock is declined, will cause me to reinstitute the protection. &mdash; Lomn 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See this section (second paragraph): Appealing_a_block - it tells you how to go about it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there no help for people with learning disabilities here - I think if/when you get unblocked you'll probably need someone to help you out since if you've got problems with spelling/grammar etc people are likely (as has happened) to think you are just taking the piss..
 * All I know about is Adopt-a-User - but I worry that such projects tend to attract weirdos (sometimes). When you get unblocked why not try it. Hopefully someone normal might be willing to help you out. It really looks like something like that could help.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.126.244 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have worked with people on Adopt-A-User - for people who have misbehaved, it can be very effective. However, if (as claimed), this user has learning difficulties and did not knowingly misbehave - I don't think adoption would help. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, user adoption is not a substitute for licensed therapy. There's really no such provision on Wikipedia. &mdash; Lomn 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a school. We have articles to provide information and a reference desk to help people find that information. We have people working on both and on various other things behind the scenes to support them. None of that involves helping people overcome learning difficulties. It's an important job, certainly, but it's not ours. --Tango (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa - please contact the blocking admin before unprotecting next time. is why - if the stewards have had to get involved in such situations, it is very unwise to arbitrarily unprotect a page like that. There is usually a reason why the page is protected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my. That's a depressing summary of misbehavior.  --Scray (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

69, two things. Firstly as Tango has said, we are an encylopaedia and run more or less completely by volunteers. Secondly, having a learning disability doesn't make you have a complete disregard of rules nor does it prevent you having respect for your fellow humans. You clearly know you've been blocked, and it is inappropriate for you to come back without getting an unblock and your extremely poor previous behaviour previously has required your page to be protected and your current behaviour shows you haven't changed. Furthermore, ignoring Steve Baker's request to leave him alone and continuing to harass him, is rude and shows a complete lack of respect, for someone who is volunteering his time to help you and other people. So please, don't try to use your learning disability as an excuse for your extremely poor behaviour. It's completely lame and all people are likely to think is that you're just trying to give a bad name to all those other people struggling with a learning disability who do know how to obey rules and do show respect for other people. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that teaching people with learning difficulties is a specialised skill. It's a skill that most - if not all - ref desk respondants lack.  All we can do is to present relevent information.  Once the question is answered (as it was, comprehensively, on the very first time it was asked) - our task is complete.  If the OP cannot understand or retain understanding of our responses then he/she should take the material that we provide to a competent teacher who is trained in dealing with learning difficulties.  Simply asking the RefDesk to answer essentially the same thing over and over again is highly unlikely to help because we are not aware of the techniques used in teaching things to people who find it hard to learn.


 * We are information providers - not teachers of information.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is peopel will gradually understnad after multiples of practices and clarification. First time, when I saw your post about Uranus disc color OP, I didn't know what the heck you talking about, after Venus and Jupiter color OP, and additional story on uranus color OP, things slowly began to ring a bell. After we gone over mars and Mercury, things began to make even more sense. Now I almost fully understand it, and I can explain it to students, though my friends cannot usually understand it but I can now. You just have to be patient. The more we hear or convo things the more the things will ring a bell-it's the same as first learning algebra in math.--69.226.42.230 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Back again?
This looks like the same guy. I've given a basic answer (I'm generous like that, and I wasn't 100% sure it was him) and he's replied with his distinctive style of completely random guesses stated as fact. Shall we go ahead with the plan of just removing his questions? --Tango (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost definitely. Not only is the posting style identical, but both are Pacbell/AT&T IPs. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Rschen's post above, I am both removing the question and blocking the IP for a week. &mdash; Lomn 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Homework problems on maths desk
Just FYI, three recent questions on the maths desk from Cambridge IPs are taken from this Cambridge problems sheet. Algebraist 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch, but wouldn't it be better to post this notice with the problems ? I doubt if all Math Desk responders read here before answering.  Also, remember that homework problems are allowed, so long as the student makes an effort at solving them before asking for our help. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the point of posting this on the 2 problems that had already been solved. My note on the third was less than clear to other deskians; I've added another. On your latter point: yes, I know, that's why this is an FYI not an OMG must delete threads. Algebraist 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your removals
I recently ran across a case where an anonymous editor was using the !nosine! keyword trick to prevent SineBot from adding a signature to his edits on the Ref Desk. He was signing his comments as plain-text 'Anonymous'. Normally that's harmless, if a bit quirky.

One case where it's not a good idea is where the editor is removing a request for medical advice. Other editors (including the original poster) may have questions or concerns about the removal or want to follow up with the editor who pulled the question.

In this particular situation, I added a link back to the IP's user page and have left a request to the anonymous editor to sign these sorts of actions from here on in. I consider the matter resolved, but I thought it worthwhile to mention it here.

This is just a reminder that it's a good practice for everyone to use a signed rd-deleted template when removing medical advice, as it contains useful explanatory links which may help the original poster. (Feel free to add additional question-specific or personalized notes as well, as long as they don't stray into offering medical advice.)

Cheers to everyone, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The one place where I don't sign a removal is if there's a double-post (one identical post right after the other). StuRat (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice ? (Heavy menstrual cycle)
The diff of the question which was deleted by an anon I/P with the !nosine! tag is here:. It doesn't look like a medical advice request to me, since it doesn't say that the OP or anyone they know has these symptoms. I'd say it could very well be their assignment for health class to find the answers to Q's like this. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is this normal?" (or versions with appropriately mangled grammar) is a very common part of requests for medical advice on the internet. I think it's best to stay well clear. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all
Just a line to thank you all for being the ref. desks. Just had a big flush of love for you all reading the Science desk today. You/we are really doing an amazing job. I used to contribute a little bit as a signed in user, I now lurk as an IP. I unfortunately barely have time to read the desks these days but when I can save an hour to go through recent question I am always amazed at the pertinence of the answers. From the bottom of my heart and from the heart of my bottom I wish you all the best and a long life to the refdesk. Kisses. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. :) --Tango (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I would also like to express my gratitude for you coming here to post this thank you note. It's nice to be appreciated. StuRat (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I know if an isotope is positive or negative?
I have my own equation, dont know how to post it. Is there a non chemical test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Scienceguy :) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, this appears like a question for Help Desk. This page is for discussing the Reference Desks.
 * Second, original research is not accepted at Wikipedia. Get your equation published in a respectable journal and then reference the journal in the pertinent article. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can i find theories about Vespucci discovering America?
Im Italian, so I root for him and not that Ohio guy.I Scienceguy :) (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, this looks like a question for Reference desk/Humanities. This page is for discussing the Refrence Desks.
 * Second, have you checked the article on Amerigo Vespucci? There are plenty of references about him near the bottom of the page.  There is also a link to the article section on the naming of America. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, if you're not User:Freewayguy I'll eat my hat. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted on his talk page. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, until everyone got sick and tired of living in a place called Vespuccia and changed the name to America." - Mitch Albom - StuRat (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Medical question deleted: Sleep
I deleted this question: diff. --Scray (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Thanks for posting the diff and link here, and including the title of the original Q, but why did it take you 5 hours ?


 * 2) Also, please post a link back to here from the Q. I've added it this time.


 * 3) Please use neutral titles for sections here. Don't claim that it is or isn't medical advice in the title, only that you have a question about it.  I've fixed it this time.


 * 4) Is this such a dangerous Q that it required an immediate nonconsensus deletion ? I don't see why.


 * 5) I'm not convinced it's a medical advice request at all. Asking what sleep schedules are healthy seems in line with asking which exercise or foods are healthy, things which we routinely ask of non-doctors (gym trainers, etc.). StuRat (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)It was 3 minutes, not 5 hours. Not sure where you got that idea, but the time stamp is clear enough.


 * My apologies, this seems to have been a mistake on my part. The time of the diff was listed as "Revision as of 12:00, 8 February 2009", while the time of this section creation was listed as "17:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)".  I had assumed both values were UTC, but apparently the 12:00 is in my time zone (EST).  I'm not sure why it's not in UTC, as that's what I have selected in my profile as my display preference.  I guess it's a Wikipedia software bug. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2)Noted.
 * 3)I said what I thought. That's what "Talk" is about.
 * 4)It was a request for medical advice, and I'm not alone (see below).
 * 5)We disagree. I respect your view.  --Scray (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this one. Doesn't seem like a request for medical advice; OP doesn't list any symptoms, just gives a bit of background as to why he's asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a request for medical advice. He describes his self-enforced sleep regimen and then asks "I would wish to know that wheather this habbit of my is good or bad". The question and all answers have to be removed. Also, to change the title of a section that another editor started to further your case against that editor is disruptive editing in that it makes a quarrel using the editing itself and gives lie to the original editor's intentions. I don't remember seeing anything about "neutral titles" in the guidelines. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a general Wikipedia policy about using neutral section titles. Maybe someone who knows the policy pages better than I can point you to the proper page.  I would also expect my title to be changed to a neutral one if I wrote "Those damned deletionists are at it again !". StuRat (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The talk page guidelines state:"Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.". An earlier section on editing others' comments also notes:"Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments." You may disagree with StuRat's assessment of the original question, but I believe his behavior here is well-supported by Wikipedia guidelines. –  7 4   01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not change the words of another editor to make it seem like they agree with you. No amount of Wikilawyering will make that right. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Just who do you propose is changing whose words to agree with whom? StuRat added "Possible" to the section title&mdash;that change is hardly a ringing endorsement of any side, and quite frankly not worth the amount of discussion already expended on this topic. I've linked you to the guidelines that you didn't remember seeing, and stated my opinion that StuRat's behavior was within the guidelines; you remain free to disagree, but please refrain from making accusations unless you have something to back them up. –  7 4   03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks like a reasonable call. The question was asking for advice about whether or not his specific habits were going to cause him health problems.  Note that any editor may remove a question if he has a good-faith belief that the question violates our medical advice rules; no prior discussion is required.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly they can do it, the question is whether they should do it, in cases where it's not clear that it is a medical advice Q, as in this case. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A policy which some editors (myself included) feel heavily weights the scales towards removal of many valid questions. A logical complement to this policy would state that any editor may restore a question if he has a good-faith belief that the question does not violate our medical advice rules. Do we really want to encourage "good-faith" edit wars? Isn't it better to discuss controversial removals instead of suggesting unilateral action? –  7 4   01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The principle behind the instant removal is that such questions are dangerous to Wikipedia. If they stay up for any length of time, the damage is done. Better to be safe. If this happy little playground of ours is chained shut by the lawyers, where will we we go? --Milkbreath (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but it makes little difference if the lawyers chain it shut or if we do so voluntarily. There are clear-cut cases that should be removed immediately; I just disagree that a question about an abnormal sleep cycle is one of them. Besides, if our "safety" rests on the premise that no one knows about the super-secret "history" tab then we're already lost. –  7 4   03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are equating the complete abolition of the reference desks by Wikimedia with our common-sense removal of dangerous posts on a case-by-case basis. I think that is overstating the case. When you say there are clear-cut cases, I agree, but we seem to disagree on what "clear-cut" means. Forgive me, but you seem to be saying that your judgment is the only one that counts. The question under discussion here is clearly a request for medical advice to my mind. And the history tab will show that we made our very best effort to contain the damage, acting immediately. My answers here are so obvious I'm wondering what I'm missing. Perhaps you're not expressing yourself on a wavelength I can receive well. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure; any question within arms' reach of the word medical is utterly dangerous and must be removed immediately. There will be no exchanging of advice on the common cold, nor any mention of the success rate for any procedure. After all, even though we've never been sued and have what our (prior) legal counsel considered a sufficient disclaimer, any such question could be the absolute ruin of the reference desk. But there are other questions; questions so vile that they too could cause the downfall of the desk. These questions masquerade as simple requests for legal information; to distance ourselves from certified online anonymous legal advice clinics we clearly must eradicate these questions as well. But can we safely stop there? This question involves a person attacking a tank&mdash;poor advice would open us up to liability for the death of the person, while good advice could make us responisble for the deaths of the tank crew. This question, meanwhile, obviously solicits advice regarding the interests of youngsters: as we all know, there is risk of a psychiatric impact from anything at such a formative age, so clearly a licensed professional should be consulted. Then we have this question exposing Wikipedia to risk of a defamation suit from the estate of the late James Madison; we'd best censor it too. Is this a simple discussion on the mathematics of betting, or a sinister attempt to wheedle financial advice out of unwitting Wikipedians? Ridiculous? Certainly. But the point is, answering any question exposes Wikipedia to potential risk&mdash;filing a lawsuit doesn't require any proof, after all&mdash;and yet we're still here. You can't spend your life terrified of long-shot consequences, or you'll cease to exist long before you die. (Just for comparison, here are some prior "sleep" questions:   . Has our consensus changed, or are we just sliding down the slope?) –   7 4   14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To get this out of the way, I looked at the four "sleep" questions you linked to (thanks for that), and I think they were all requests for medical advice. The risk of a lawsuit is not the primary reason we should remove RMAs but the harm we could cause by answering, which harm would be the reason for the lawsuit. So the suit and the harm are one and the same. When I'm trying to convince someone who doesn't seem to understand or care about the responsibility we refdeskers have to not advise people to their detriment, I fall back on the real threat of legal action. What you're saying is true, that any communication carries potential for harm, but we draw a line, and we've drawn it at medical and legal advice. There are laws against practicing medicine without a license and impersonating an officer of the court, but there are no laws against analyzing the defenses of a tank or helping teachers with ideas. There must be a reason that people thought the first two were bad enough to punish; think of them yourself and simply apply them here. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Medical advice is to "practicing medicine" as analyzing the defenses of a tank is to assaulting a tank. –  7 4   15:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Practicing medicine without a license" would involve specific acts like performing surgery (which we can't do here), providing prescriptions (which possibly could be done via e-mail, but it's not something we're likely to have a problem with), or falsely representing yourself as a medical doctor while offering "medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations". Some random person telling you "you need to get more sleep" is NOT "practicing medicine without a license".  Why do you think that it is ?  Can you cite any case ever where somebody was arrested for that, much less convicted ? StuRat (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I do not believe this question needed to be removed (and I strongly disagree with removal of the current non-medical answers). –  7 4   01:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the compromise we've adopted is that if a question has been removed incorrectly – as determined by a consensus on this talk page – we will restore it to the bottom of the appropriate Ref Desk, so that it still receives the full care and attention of the Desk's denizens.
 * The reason why we sanction immediate removal is that otherwise we end up with medical advice offered by well-meaning individuals who are unfamiliar with our policy. Our own speed and efficiency at answering questions works against us in this circumstance, I'm afraid &mdash; the time it would take to discuss the issue on this talk page is far longer than the time it takes for the average question (less than one hour) to be answered on the Desks.  (Some of the reasons why we don't want to go near offering medical advice – as defined in our guidelines – are outlined in my own essay.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I and others have stated before, nonconsensus removals should only be used for the most obviously bad questions, which pose a real danger. For questionable cases like this one, nonconsensus removals are no more justified than nonconsensus restores.  The responses I've seen here do not lead me to believe that there was, or is, a consensus to remove this Q (I count 3 on each side, not counting the OP and all the responders to the Q, who apparently felt there was something worth responding to). StuRat (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have made that point very clearly. By necessity, we have to use our own judgment when identifying questions that ask for medical or legal advice. That's what I did.  Sometimes we won't agree.  I don't dispute the validity of the process that is playing out here.  --Scray (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Up-page, it was proposed that a "content warning" template could provide an intermediate step between ignoring the question and outright deletion. This would both warn potential respondents and serve to further disclaim any responses while we discuss removal (and invite interested parties from the desk proper to join the discussion). An appropriate template would allow an uncontroversial immediate response without inspiring acrimony and edit wars; this is the exact same procedure mainspace Wikipedia uses to great effect for nearly every contentious process. At least to me, that sounds a lot closer to a compromise than the current process. (Immediate deletion could still be applied to clear violations&mdash;I think we all agree that some situations clearly warrant immediate removal.) –  7 4   05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Such middle ground might be very helpful. I recently gave a general answer to what I thought was a borderline-medical-advice question, only to have other editors follow with what I really thought crossed the line into medical advice (and I commented to that effect).  A caution flag would help, with the regulars at least.  I just don't think it needs to be a banner.  --Scray (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need something more reasonable than just immediately deleting everything like this, without consensus. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion was that this was a question regarding the health implications of a particular sleep pattern, including a request for advice on how to mitigate these effects. This is partly grounded on the well-established health implications of sleep.  I did immediately post the diff (contrary to StuRat's contention above) here.  When fairly neutral responses followed, I did not remove them because I felt that their wording was neutral - all of this seemed to me to be within the guidelines.  I've seen differences of opinion here before, and I accept that.  --Scray (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've adding a clarification on the timing issue near the top. I'd also like to add an item I forgot in my initial response:


 * 6) When posting a removal, please provide your evidence for how the Q violated our guidelines. For example, in the case of medical advice, show where they requested "medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations". StuRat (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed 'question' (Evolution Under Attack!!!)
I have I deleted this which doesn't appear to be a genuine question but looks more like an attempt at soapboxing. (I had planned to discuss first but upon realising that this was likely Bowei Huang, I changed my mind). The IP, likely Bowei Huang has a history of asking inappropriate questions, e.g. (I think most regulars would recognise this question. See also . Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a question, and an excellent choice for speedy removal. Thank you for removing it and posting a concise explanation here. –  7 4   13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal, on the basis of it not containing a question (or anything that can be made into a question). I don't agree with excising it completely, however, as the good faith responders, at the very least, have the right to know who removed their responses and why.  I will put back the title and the responses but leave the Q deleted and add info as to why it was deleted. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've put the answers back, but not the Q. Also:


 * 1) I changed this section's title to include the name of the Q in question, and a link to it. It already had a neutral title, so good job there.


 * 2) I added a link from the (non)Q back to this discussion. StuRat (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am curious about the basis for putting a question into a collapsed drop box format as opposed to actually deleting it. Is there a reason or guideline? It seems to me the question is still there, just requires an extra click to see it. thanks and cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this and tried it before. The idea is that it will prevent additional responders from answering, yet will allow those trying to understand the current answers to easily see what they were responding to. It also helps anyone trying to understand why it was removed to know which kind of questions (or non-questions, as in this case) are deemed unacceptable. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't object to what you've done, I would point out I informed all 3 responders of the removal and this discussion precisely so that they are aware of what happened and why, and are able to participate in the discussion if they feel the need. In retrospect it was probably wise to mention it here. While in this case it doesn't matter, it would IMHO be better to remove the entire thread when it's likely leaving it there serves the whatever purpose the OP had (a good example would be the sockpuppet I found who attempted to use the RD to promote some doctor he/she was fascinated with and attack people he/she regarded as unjust to the doctor). BTW, as I've mentioned before, I personally have no problem if my good faith answer is removed along with a question whose removal is warranted and I believe I've read others say likewise but I understand if not everyone feels that way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you informed all the people whose comments you removed, I wish everyone would do that. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me; I didn't notice it was Bowei, and if I had I probably would have removed it myself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I do object to replacing a question from a known troll and inviting more feeding -- the objectionable non-question is even back on the page (I fail to see how this constitutes "removal"). I understand StuRat's point about educating the responders, but this could easily have been done via talk page message without reintroducing the objectionable content. &mdash; Lomn 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy that a collapsed question provides an example to others of the sort of question which will get collapsed. I'm happy that it was removed in the first place & happy that it has been reinstated as it has been. IN general, in future, I would tend towards collapsing rather than removing, unless the question is completely objectionable rather than just dumb. fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're a little too happy... :-)   Anyway, I support the use of collapsible boxes for removed questions as described by Tagishsimon. –   7 4   21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Were it not a serial offender, I would agree. &mdash; Lomn 14:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the 31-hour block was not effective. The drop-down, while beautiful, looks like ott political correctness. Bowei is like a dripping tap. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "ott" Aussie-speak ? StuRat (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's an abbreviation for "over the top". --Richardrj talkemail 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. The lack of caps or periods and looking like a word that could be pronounced confused me.  lol. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Richardrj is correct, and then there's the added quirk of saying it as it's spelled (if you feel like it, once you know its meaning). But then that's even more ott. ~:) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Repost on another desk, no?
Just catching up on recent days' queries on my usual turf, I see some mismatches that remain neglected, like a Shakespeare query on the Language Desk and a Czech language query on the Humanities Desk (though, phrased about a film, it might even have wound up on the Entertainment RD). I've forgotten the drill for re-posting on behalf of "no-account" OPs; would any of you kind souls be ready, willing, and able to review that here – or is it already explained somewhere? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we have a specific rule on this. I might be inclined to say something along the lines of


 * "Your question is (or questions about foo are) more likely to receive attention at the Foo Desk. I have copied it over there, and you can see the answers to it by following this link: Foo. - Joe User"


 * What do people think? In general, we probably want to avoid deleting the question in the original location, both because it may make it harder for the OP to find, and because (occasionally) the move itself will be in error. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the question, but not the section heading, so the OP will find the link easily, but we won't have answers in both places. It's better if all the volunteers focus on the one dare I call it "thread". And just to be clear, the link has to be to the very question moved and not just to the Desk it was moved to. A half-baked thought...is it possible to create a redirect for a moved question? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should move the question, not copy it, but we should leave the old section heading and add a link to the new question. The new question should also have a link back to the old location with text like this: "Question moved from the Foo Desk by ~ ".  Also, if the OP moves it back, don't fight them on it, just let it be.  It's not worth an edit war. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that's normal practice on the RD and elsewhere. At least it's what I've always done. I normally use small text for the link back to the original location though . Leaving the original text is likely to result in people replying to both and excessive confusion. If we really need to reverse the move just do a similar thing Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LEGAL ADVICE
This is my first attempt at posting here so please excuse any mistakes. I wish to express ethical concerns regarding the actual drafting of language to comply with a legal requirement under a student association constitution. My background is strictly common law so I may not know the details. It seems that constitutes legal advice. Someone is posting here with the express purpose of relying upon the information given. Yet no one is assuming professional responsibility. Many times people ask very simple legal questions. It frequently seems silly not to provide a citation or simple explanation. I do believe in the policy, however, that wikipedia cannot assume liability and as a entity is in no position to give professional advice. The proper boundaries elude me. 75Janice (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * I am having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Do you mean that you would like to allow simple legal questions to be answered on the Reference Desks?  To be more precise, what specifically are your proposing with respect to the guidelines?  --Scray (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. She? is concerned that the questions and answers for Reference desk/Humanities cross the threshold and should be considered legal advice and in violation of the guidelines, eventhough the OP and other posters have stated it isn't Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, I am acknowledging that answering simple questions seems innocuous. Wikipedia cannot know the factual details that framed the question. There may be cases where the determining of what constitutes "legal advice" is muddy. I don't believe this is one such case. For instance, I don't know whether Dutch law truly impacts private association questions. The university or college may have policies that impact the answer. We cannot know. Just b/c the question states "I am not asking for legal advice" does not mean that legal advice is not involved. One case involved someone asking about legal practice to add flavor to a novel he was writing. Such a case is borderline to me. Still, I would apply the no legal advice rule to even that case to protect Wikipedia from liability. In this case, however, the question is clear that the person is planning to rely on the answer to decide a course of conduct. I do not view it as innocuous. I feel the no legal advice guidelines should be enforced. 68.34.176.24 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * Having Wikipedians debate what is and isn't legal advice produces a result that has no legal applicability and should be treated as gingerly as the alleged legal advice provided by the reference desk. What we need is legal advice concerning what constitutes legal advice as applied to the reference desk (with specific consideration of Florida state law). I believe Wikipedia has discussed this concern with legal counsel before; are the results available somewhere? Should this subject be revisited for confirmation with Wikipedia's current counsel? –  7 4   18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the suggestion that counsel decide this question is a good idea. Reading this page quickly, I noticed that one ref desker jumps in wholeheartedly to answer any question concering medical or legal questions. Counsel would be divorced from the immediate discussions and would embrace a more general view. S/he would also be familiar with laws regarding professional advice in many jurisdictions. States in the US have laws preventing such advice. Also, it isn't only a matter of a lawyer or doctor providing such advice. Giving advice does not end professional responsibility. I am not certain of the procedure to raise the issue with counsel. I want to declare my support for the idea.pages: 75Janice (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Collapsing-template
Folks, what's the wikipedia template for collapsing a big run of stuff (that might not be of interest to everyone) with a show/hide thing? I'm going to post some code in reply to the css menu question at the bottom, but I'm concerned that this'll make the quesion and answer sprawl annoyingly for folks who're just skipping over to something they care about. Thanks. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The simplest way is this:


 * See Help:Collapsing for the more complicated ways. Algebraist 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Boiling to death
I find this contribution, in which a link was added showing a particularly grotesque human corpse, an utterly offensive and grossly inappropriate and unecessary contribution and am calling for it to be removed. I am not sure what wikipedia policy is for this sort of material but I find it utterly wrong and contrary to all standards of decency and morality in civilised cultures to link to this content. Although I am against censorship as such, there should be standards. I for one feel a little psychologically traumatised after viewing this and I am an adult. What if a child was to see this. Frankly I find it completely irresponsible. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The image wasn't posted to the desk itself. A link was posted, with a warning. If you followed the link after reading the warning then what followed is your own problem. Algebraist 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there was no explicit warning, what followed was completely unexpected, call me naive but that is NOT my problem. It is irresponsible to post such things. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not click on that link. The thought of it alone was horrific enough.  I don't know if there's a specific Wikipedia policy that covers it, but perhaps Algebraist would voluntarily remove it, if for no other reason than the kindness of their own heart.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should I be the one to that? My only contribution related to that link has been to say it should not be removed. Algebraist 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the photo fascinating (horrifying, too, of course). It's really interesting to see what happens to a human that is left in boiling water for a couple of weeks. I find my intellectual curiosity generally outweighs my disgust of such things, and I think we should all embrace curiosity. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jdrewitt, while your concern is sincere, the usual argument against this is that if we accommodate you by censoring this picture, we'd have to accommodate anyone who has strong feelings against any picture/video/article/reference (such as muslims who may want all pictures of Muhammad removed). It would be quite hard to run a refdesk if everything had to comply with everyone's standards of decency and morality. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well as a compromise, can a more explicit warning be added? I have stated I don't generally agree with censorship, and that is why I posted here and not just going ahead and removing the link, but I am really concerned that we have a responsibility not to traumatise readers, especially those under the age of 18. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add whatever warning you want. Algebraist 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a warning and I hope you can forgive my sensitivity in this matter. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never understood this idea that children are more easily affected by things like this - in my experience children are extremely resilient and bounce back very quickly (there are exceptions, of course, I'm talking generally). --Tango (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never recovered from watching someone locked helpless in an iron maiden cage and left to die in a Vincent Price movie. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also never recovered from watching Vincent Price movies. However, in my case, it was his acting (or lack thereof) which offended my delicate sensibilities. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dermatologist on-call
I am a dermatologist, and would like to field any skin-related questions when they arise through the help desk. However, I do not want to be constantly checking for those types of questions. Is there any way to be notified when questions of a particular topic are posted? kilbad (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) No, there isn't, and (2) while I'm sure you're aware of it, we do have to tread carefully where medical advice is involved, as per Medical disclaimer and the rules spelled out all over the Ref desk pages. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. kilbad (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) As for finding Q's about skin, I'd expect them on the Science Desk, or perhaps occasionally the Misc Desk. You can use  to search for words like "skin" (or partial words like "derm") on each Desk, to likely find anything skin related.  Or, you could just browse through the titles in the table of contents for each Desk and see if anything sounds related to your field.  However, many Q's have poor titles, like "Question", so this may not always work. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As an extension of that thought, could we have a bot that allowed users to register "keywords of interest", monitored the reference desks for questions containing those keywords, and notified users on their talk pages if any "keywords of interest" were found? That actually sounds like it might work; perhaps I'll look into writing the bot. –  7 4   17:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, Pubmed and many journals offer a service like this. One modification I would suggest is that I'd expect to find the results on my watchlist rather than my Talk page, given the usual functions of each.  --Scray (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild goose chase links
I've recently seen some responses on the Desks that are along the lines of "Does our article on foo answer your question?". Sometimes these responses point to helpful information, sometimes not.

While I'm all in favour of the Socratic method, that sort of phrasing suggests to the naive reader than the respondent hasn't actually checked the article in question to see if it's of any use. At best, that type of comment may come across as a tad rude. At worst, we send the original poster off on a wild goose chase, searching an article that doesn't contain the information sought &mdash; and we discourage other editors from answering the question, because an answer is already apparently present.

Wikipedia continues to improve, but there are still occasions where an article doesn't contain all the information that one might hope or expect to see. Before we throw out wikilinks as answers to a question, we need to take care to check them for suitability.

Thanks again to everyone who continues to make the effort to help out around here. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that "Have you seen foo?" might be used to provide a less confrontational response than "See foo." The latter presumes that the resource *will* answer the OP's question ; if it does not, then the OP is forced to make a confrontational statement to that effect . The conditional case, however, has uncertainty built in, so a simple negative response is not unexpected nor excessively confrontational, which some might see as promoting a more friendly dialogue. In my opinion, a definitive wrong answer is significantly worse than a non-definitive wrong answer. At least in my own usage, the presence of conditional phrasing in a response does not indicate that I haven't reviewed the reference, only that I don't guarantee the reference is exactly what the OP requested, and that I'm willing to consider other options. –  7 4   15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"footnotes:"


 * If/when I link to an article, I check to make sure that it contains an answer to the question that has been posted. This also helps avoid the minor faux pas of linking to a disambiguation page. -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Um, no ( in answer to the above, which we shouldn't say here, either..."the above", that is ). I agree with TenO', but sometimes, of course, that's all the asker wants: which article has the info? Another point is that if we do use  "See foo" as part of an answer, it should be "See foo#bar". --Milkbreath (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the primary responsibility for searching the article to see if it contains the required info lies with the OP. If there's an obvious article which should contain that info, I expect them to read it and then come back and ask again if it doesn't contain the desired info.  However, my experience has been that many OPs don't check the article first.  So, it's not unreasonable to ask if they have done so.   I don't consider this to be a lack of AGF, since failing to read the relevant article before asking a Q isn't malicious, it's just lazy.  It can sound a bit "bitey" at times, and I'm all for any way we make it less so, but, just like the computer support phone line that always asks if the computer is plugged in, this is a necessary first step before we get down to details. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My normal practice is to check quickly, but if (as often) the question is complicated or unclear, or the article is long, then I think it's a lot more useful for me to tell the OP that the article might be useful than for me to give up and post nothing. Algebraist 21:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall seeing any responses suggesting blatantly unhelpful article links; TenOfAllTrades, could you provide a few links to responses that point to unhelpful information so that I might better understand the problem? Thanks! –  7 4   22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. See foo.  --Scray (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the timing I'd have to say that the trigger which caused Ten to post here was my "Does our caffeine article explain this ?" response here: Reference_desk/Science. I think my response was quite useful, as the article I linked to seemed likely to contain the answer.  I didn't have the time to verify this at the time.  I believe it did contain at least a partial answer, as Ten and others later confirmed.  So, I don't really see a problem with my response. StuRat (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this from a different point of view. Sure, it is a good thing&trade; to be overly nice to all questioners on the RD.  However, many questions are answered very clearly in the articles.  Often, it is very easy to find.  For example, a person may ask, "Are hedgehogs native to Australia?"  If you do a quick check, you will see that the article hedgehog answers the question in the first paragraph.  So, what I read is, "I'm too important to use that search thing over there, so I'm going to demand that you pathetic minions use it for me and answer my question because I know that you don't have anything worthwhile to do with your life but waste time trying to keep me happy."  Responding with "See hedgehog." is, to me, a very polite response to such a question. --  k a i n a w &trade; 06:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with saying "See hedgehog" as an answer, but as helpful pathetic minions, it behooves us to have a glance at hedgehog to verify that the question actually is answered in the article. None of us is compelled to answer any question on the Desk; if an editor thinks that a poster is a lazy jerk, we don't have to provide any reply.
 * Ultimately, the purpose of a Reference Desk is to help put people with questions in touch with answers. The fact that we're here answering questions in the first place suggests to me that (at least for some portion of the time) we really don't have anything worthwhile to do with our time beyond helping keep random strangers on the Internet happy.
 * I'm all for mentioning the search box in a response, mind you &mdash; a lot of posters seem genuinely unaware that it is present. Heck, based on the way that some queries are phrased, there's a significant minority who seem to think that we're some sort of automated search engine.  While some posters are obviously just looking for us to do their homework for them, I think that most are genuinely curious people who may be honestly clueless about how to search Wikipedia.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it really better to point them in the proper direction than just give them the answer ? This is especially true of homework, but also somewhat true in general.  I'd like to teach them how to find the info themselves, rather than have them remain dependent on us.  With the coffee stimulant question, the logical first step would be to look up caffeine and see if that answered it.  Then, if it didn't, maybe posting a Q on the Ref Desk would be in order.  I'm just trying to get them to go through the proper steps which are likely to lead to correct answers, so the next time they can perhaps get the answer on their own. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But what will we do when everyone is a self-sufficient researcher? The reference desks are doomed!  ;-)   While I agree with your principle here, I do feel that your response to the caffeine question parses like guesswork. Perhaps "Have you checked our article on caffeine?" or "Perhaps our article on caffeine might prove helpful." or even "See caffeine.", all of which seem less like guesswork to me. On the other hand, seeming less like guesswork is even worse if the answer actually *is* guesswork; it's rather difficult to point them in the "proper direction" without verifying that the direction you're pointing is actually proper (e.g. a cursory article review for key terms). I do not support link-spamming in general; if a respondent is unwilling to spend 30 seconds verifying a link then it's probably best that they simply not respond. –   7 4   07:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say "if the OP is unwilling to spend 30 seconds checking the obvious article, then it's probably best that they simply not ask". I guess it's a difference in philosophy: I find the primary responsibility for getting an answer to be with the OP, with us as a backup, while you view the primary responsibility as being ours. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer *is* the OPs responsibility, of course. Our responsibility as respondents is not to provide incorrect or misleading information. I'm not saying we need to read through the article or anything, just that there should be some expectation that the linked content may answer the OPs question. I'd go so far as to accept "that information was in the article the last time I read it" as a reasonable assurance, and some links are blatantly obvious solutions ("What's a boot sector?" → "See boot sector."), but I have no way of knowing if the former is true in this specific case; and in my opinion the latter, while exceedingly close, isn't quite blatant (the amount of detail in caffeine is a pleasant surprise). That said, I do appreciate your significant contributions to the reference desks and I hope you don't take my opinions personally. –  7 4   19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is binary: either you read the OP question carefully, check the article to be sure the answer does indeed exist there, then refer them to foo to find what they need (hopefully without being sarcastic about their need to actually exercise brainpower before asking, a test which I often fail); or you work on the assumption that the information does exist and they're too lazy/stupid to search for it themselves (which, yeah, does happen :) and phrase it differently, as in "Have you read our article on foo yet? Please follow up with any questions that aren't already answered there."
 * Among the fascinations I have with the RefDesks is how actually hard it can be to find specific information in a wiki article. Keeps me sharp when I read a question, think to myself "well, duhh, read the article" - then go and actually read the article. It's not always that simple. And per ToaT's original sentiment, it is our own collective responsibility to not send questioners on WGCes - you have to be sure the specific answer is there before you send them packing... Franamax (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Teenage Behaviour" queried on the Humanities RD
Dear peers, I strongly object to conjectural responses to queries on matters of intergenerational conflicts in families, likewise dating-and-mating advice, on the Ref Desks. (This present one bears the guise of discussing teen practices on electronic communication channels, but is clearly a request for advice about suspected antisocial tendencies.) The Miscellaneous RD has its "forum" nature, so perhaps such queries might be moved or reposted there. Just because the content isn't clearly medical/legal/veterinary in nature doesn't mean the RDs, which are meant to help search factual material, need respond like the sort of advice forums which abound on the Internet anyway. Please consider that teenage issues sometimes end in suicide/homicide or (more often) nonlethal but nonetheless aggravated circumstances. Is that what "we're here for"? I think not. (I'd also recommend we drop the sexual behavior queries, replete with the OP's boasts as relevant contextual content.) What's the consensus, please, or is each one of these a judgment call? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the idiots who was stupid enough to respond to the teen thing, I have to agree with you. Sometimes we get a little carried away, and it's good to have our leash yanked from time to time, the way you're doing here. This is a reference desk, not the Dr. Phil show. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's obviously a request for advice, I don't see where "antisocial tendencies" come into play (a desire for privacy is not antisocial by default). Simply put, if the material offends thy sensibilities, skip and ignore it (WP:NOTCENSORED). I also refuse to consider your implication that this question may involve a murder/death/kill; that is a sensationalist fallacy, plain and simple. –  7 4   14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion that I've raised this issue out of "offended sensibilities" is a peculiar reading, where I'm voicing concern for the offering of advice in human relations matters that wind up on the Humanities RD. I stated several objections, only one of which had to do with possible dire consequences. What I seek is not flat-out censorship but rather guidelines for Reference Desk content and practice in queries/responses where "information" is based on advice rather than knowledge. Some of us are trying to run an encyclopedia here. I'd suggest the response would be to direct the OP to a suitable advice forum elsewhere. Note, too, that I'm an inclusionist of record and something of a regular (on both sides of the footlights) on the RDs.-- Deborahjay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome to suggest just that to any question that you feel would be more appropriately discussed elsewhere (here's an example of advice doing so). Other respondents might suggest appropriate links for research. Others will tend to offer advice (which is true of questions ranging from surviving in the Permian to lyrical clichés). If we were to eliminate all "advice" we would probably cut the number of responses by half, if not more, and provide significantly decreased value to the OPs. Anyone is free to provide a counterpoint to incorrect advice, and in my opinion the research desk benefits from having multiple viewpoints. (I'd have a much harder time defending this question, however.) –  7 4   19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me pose a sample question: "My brother keeps bugging me, what should I do ?". This isn't the type of question one would normally take to an encyclopedia.  However, if someone has a particularly relevant piece of advice, I have no objection to them giving it.  For example, there might be a book that gives advice on how to get along with your siblings, and providing links to that could be useful.  If someone has some personal advice to give, that's fine with me, too. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Humanities Ref Desk? How about answering that on the OP's page, and placing a template "The Reference Desk is not an advice forum," unless someone's providing information rather than advice. StuRat, you're known for generously tackling many (and among them otherwise neglected) queries, including responses of the "personal advice" sort. Is this reasonable according to the consensus, or what are the guidelines we observe here? I feel the RefDesk is becoming bloated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make up a fictional reference to go along with my fictional Q, let's say the answer pointed them to an article entitled Role-Playing Strategies Used to Diffuse Sibling Conflicts published in a reputable psychiatry trade journal. What would be wrong with listing such an answer directly on the Ref Desk ? StuRat (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case the OP receives exactly one response with no oversight. The reference desks have become "bloated" beore; the last splits (Computing, Math, and Entertainment) were in 2006, so we may be overdue for another. –  7 4   19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thread linked at the top of this one was not "clearly a request for advice about suspected antisocial tendencies" - it was a simple question that any reasonably sensible adult might ask of their friends or colleagues, and while it might not meet the strictest interpretation of the RefDesks "purpose" I do not think that it does any harm in allowing it and responding to it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a really REALLY simple solution here. If you don't like the question - don't answer it. Most of the worst kinds of question are trolls and not feeding them is by far the best response. SteveBaker (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RD-related talk collapsed here
This edit. I was tempted to move the content to this page, but collapsing seemed like a better option, per recent discussion. In my opinion, this also obviated the need for me to notify all involved - collapsing makes it easy to see what happened. My comment is that the discussion that I collapsed should not have happened on RD/S itself. --Scray (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; proper channels for dispute resolution do not include arguing on the reference desks. Thank you for the collapsification. –  7 4   18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that collapsing is the way to go. Good call, and I'd really like to see that become the SOP in cases like this in the future. I particularly like the fact that it's fairly neutral and elegant way to deal with it, and it's easy for everyone to follow the discussion here. (And agreed: it shouldn't have happened on the Desk, and that's probably my fault more than anyone else's. I apologize, my bad.)
 * Anyway. Let me quote a relevant bit by arimareiji:
 * "But on an intellectual level, this was and is rapidly becoming moreso a matter of open poo-slinging in what is much more of a public space than it is a talk space, and thus not protected by "freedom of speech"."
 * I'm not even saying it's a freedom of speech issue -- that's another thing, and I'm not going to comment on that now unless it becomes really relevant. My point is this: if one person starts making judgment calls on what is so offensive that it needs to be removed, I figure I can do the same, and so can anyone else. We like to imagine that offensive material can be easily defined, but it can't. I don't think there was anything wrong with Kainaw's response, for example. On the other hand, I've seen my share of answers that I find offensive because they're stupid, or because they demonstrate a world view I disagree with, etc. It doesn't happen too often, but it's certainly not rare. And when it comes to questions, we get a lot of stuff that is either stupid or ignorant to the point of being offensive, racist, motivated by religious zealotry, etc. And I find that offensive. I mean, I don't mind them being offensive as such, because I'm not terribly sensitive to that, but I do find it offensive -- that is to say, I think it makes the world a little worse place and it makes my day a little less fun, and I cultivate an active dislike for the people involved.
 * So does that mean I can start censoring their questions and answers, because they're offensive? Just based on our difference of opinion here, I'm pretty sure that at least some of those things wouldn't be offensive to you. And that's just you and me; the Ref Desk has, what, several dozen regulars, who would also be allowed to do that -- plus, of course, all the random people who pass through us on a regular basis. How long would it take until people start claiming that they're offended and editing the answers they get just so they can preserve their view of the world when their question is just soapboxing that gets shot down, for example? And most importantly, how much time and effort would we have to spend -- and how much of our signal-to-noise ratio would we have to sacrifice -- in all the crap that we would have to go through just to figure out if the material was edited out in good faith or if someone is merely claiming so to win an argument. It would serve no purpose, and it would just cause trouble.
 * If someone is being rude, you can bring it up on their talk page or you can bring it up here, or use one of the other channels Wikipedia has for that kind of thing. I'm not saying that people should get a free pass to be jerks; you can call them on it (and if you feel they're really being assholes, you probably should call them on it). But if you start editing their messages, you're going to do one more thing I haven't yet mention: you're going to make them angry, and for a good reason -- especially if they wrote their comment in good faith. That's not conducive to resolving the matter peacefully, because once you've already censored them, they're going to be defensive and feel like you're lording it over them. (Partly because that's pretty much exactly what you would be doing.)
 * I think it's a bad idea to start editing others' posts without really good and exceptional reasons. It is a can of worms. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your actions reverting edits to another user's comments (and claiming partial responsibility for the collapsed off-topic discussion). The long exposition is probably unnecessary; comment editing is prohibited by our guidelines (with a few notable exceptions, none of which apply here), and I don't believe that will change any time soon. –  7 4   18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, the action being discussed is here Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitur
(section heading inserted for the following non sequitur) --Scray (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Add a category 'Medical, Legal Advice and Discussions' and redirect it to Reference desk/Guidelines.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that's related to this thread (or anything else). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was my impression that this response was intended for my comment above suggesting a split of the reference desks if they are "bloated". –  7 4   01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was, someone must have been messing around.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Level 2 headings for User:142.204.75.105's multipostings
Was I wrong, at 21:18 and 21:19 on 24 February 2009, to change multiple Level 3 headings for the plethora of queries posted en masse by one User:142.204.75.105, to Level 2 for individual numbering in the TOC? I believe that keeping orderly entries helps maintain the flow of Q&A in posting/responding—and frankly, I'm uncomfortable with that user's burst of queries, while I admire and appreciate those who fielded them succinctly. The headings were all reverted (or restored) at some point, and though I looked through the subsequent edit history, I didn't notice by whom. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you mention to which RefDesk you're referring? This Talk page serves multiple RDs (this was confusing to me at first).  BTW, it is appropriate for you to edit heading formats for RD consistency/readability.  --Scray (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'd omitted that detail: Humanities, starting here and going on thus. I still can't figure out when the formatting was reverted, and by whom. I realize this isn't a big deal, but I feel uneasy when gnome-work I've done is reverted.-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos reverted you. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but grouping multiple related queries by the same poster together is a useful way of providing some needed structuring; it makes it easier for others to understand wat's going on at a glance... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that if they are truly unrelated Q's, then there's no need to link them together. However, there is often some underlying link which isn't initially apparent.  So, I'd be reluctant to change them if the OP listed them that way, as there may be a link we can't easily see. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations; the particular groupings had some common style/content, but the choice of Level 2 heading appeared to me as a simple 1-out-of-five (or so) grouping and not structurally related to the subsequent queries. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The first group was all Bangladesh-related, and the second group was all Arab-related, as I remember... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing? if so, what to do?
On WP:RD/H—a thread on which I've participated, providing information and an internal link I hope are useful and NPOV—I find the following subsequent comment to be contentious and soapboxing: "the answer is no it didn't as even till today Zionism still uses the old terror tactics it used to employ against the Palestinians like demolishing houses killing civilians using illegal weapons and such as terror and violence have been the major pillars for establishing Israel they won't just stop using them which in turn lead to terrorism against Jewish and American civilians who had nothing to do with the violence from the beginning this in turn leads to the world sympathizing with Zionism thus they achieve their goals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightshadow 2007 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)" If this is unacceptable, how is this treated? Is the comment removed? Is there a template for "The Reference Desk is not a Soapbox" or similar? Does the poster get a notification/warning? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a red-link registered user, five out of six of whose contributions since registering in August 2008 have been rambling, one-long-sentence revisionistic denunciations of Israel. On the other hand, his talk page is also red-linked, so he's not here to make trouble so much, right? I'd try a message on his talk page explaining how the RefDesk is not exactly a talk page and suggesting he voluntarily remove his comment on the grounds that it is unreferenced. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In your judgment, then, is the only objection to that content its lack of sourcing? Is soapboxing only an OP offense, not a respondent's? Is there any action to soapboxing on an RD discussion? My concern is for readers who might see this response as within the bounds of accepted discourse here... while we're waiting for the above user to voluntarily do anything besides more of the same. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with soapboxing OPs is that they're here to rant at us, not to ask questions, so they're going against the purpose of the refdesk. This poster is giving an answer to the question asked, so he's working within the desk's purpose in that sense. We don't normally require explicit referencing for uncontroversial statements (such as that Israel was established through violence and terror), but I agree it's a good idea for more contentious claims. Algebraist 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)You ask for my judgment as if that matters. OK, I'd say it's a fair assessment of what the situation must look like from the other side. The Israelis weren't exactly putting daisies in Arab gun barrels in those early days (for whatever reason), and it's fair to say any time that violence begets violence. He doesn't exactly say that Zionism planned it all so that they might achieve their goals, just that it worked out that way. That's my judgment about his comments, not about the situation in the Middle East, which I won't go into unless there's a good reason to. I'm an American, and I consider freedom of speech to be our most important principle and safeguard (just beating habeas corpus by a smidge). I welcome comments like Nightshadow's because they make me focus my thoughts for rebuttal. But not on the RefDesks. That's all I'm saying—not on the RefDesks. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much problem here; the ref desk answers roughly portray the situation accurately: there is dispute in the use of the terms and there is still violence of some sort. Continuing the thread (or responding to the other answers) is probably a bad idea, as that will just bring the article dispute here, which is inappropriate.  If the thread continues, I'd be find with "collapsing it" with hidden begin. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it was an incoherent unpunctuated ranting tirade which added little if anything of real value to that conversation. AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that seems a good solution. I'm normally relucant to remove comments particularly since it's quite common other people have posted similar comments perhaps with the opposite POV so it's simply an escalation and removing one but not the others is likely to be unfair. But that comment clearly crosses the line and all the other comments don't seem even close. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the excerpt at the top this seems like a good removal, but please provide a diff for the removal so I can check it out fully. StuRat (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=273469806, but I didn't do it in response to the discussion here; I came here to explain my actions after having deleted it independently... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Einsteins prediction regarding the "weak force"
(Question moved to the Science Desk. –  7 4   16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC))


 * This page is for discussing the reference desk. You want WP:RD/S. Algebraist 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing your own posts
Just a reminder, if you wish to remove your own post because you feel it was ill-advised and someone has replied to it, either strike it out or at least leave mention of its removal. Don't do this as it confuses the thread and leaves the person who replied looking stupid. (I've already informed I-210 directly) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(Possible) Medical advice question removed - Bornholms disease
I have removed this question which I believe is a clear request for medical advice. Note that the poster asks for treatment options. The question regarding her husband and daughter make it clear that this is not a theoretical question. - EronTalk 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-removed the answers because the guidelines say to, and because one suggested homeopathy, worthless mysticism which if adhered to to the exclusion of real medical help would result in harm to a person. DuncanHill saw fit to put them back. Do we have to go round with this every time? What's hard about "don't give medical advice"? Don't do it. This isn't a game or a philosophical battleground. Real harm can come to real people. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The answers which you removed and which I replaced were not medical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Bornholm disease and form your own opinion of the information there. As to your specific questions pertaining to medical advice, please discuss these with your doctor.  Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  03:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks to me to be a request to improve our article, which is rather limited. They even offered specific suggestions as to what should be added.  Although perhaps misplaced (the article's talk page might be better), we do sometimes entertain requests for improvements in articles on the Ref Desk, especially if the knowledge of Ref Deskers is required to do so properly.  I've even heard "improving Wikipedia articles" listed as one of the primary purposes of the Ref Desk.  The mention of family members seems to only be in the context of it not be highly contagious, meaning some change in the article might be appropriate (of course, this bit of OR would need to be backed up by a reliable source to warrant a change to the article). StuRat (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The original poster named a medical condition and then explicitly asked "Are there any cures?" and "What homeopathic treatment is available?" We aren't mind readers here. We can speculate on what the OP's "real" question was, but if the question as posted is not a request for medical advice - "Hi, how do you treat Condition X?" - then I cannot imagine what could be considered a request for medical advice.

Is it so important that every question be retained and answered that we bend ourselves in knots trying to explain how something which clearly reads as a request for medical advice really might not be? - EronTalk 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What you did right and wrong with this removal:


 * 1) You posted a discussion here. That's good.


 * 2) You included the name of the Q in the section title here. That's good.  But you didn't use a neutral section title, but rather explicitly stated that it is a medical advice request.  That's bad.  I fixed that.


 * 3) You included a diff for the removal. That's good.  You should also include a link to the Q itself, though, so we can determine it's current state.  Here it is: Reference_desk/Science.


 * 4) You didn't include a link at the Q pointing to this discussion. That's bad. Without that, the OP has no idea that they are even allowed to discuss it, much less where to go.  I fixed that.


 * 5) You stated your reasons for thinking it's medical advice, that's good.


 * 6) Some people think you should also notify the OP and any posters on their talk pages, but I wouldn't require that, myself. So long as you follow the previous steps they should be able to find the discussion of why their contributions were deleted.


 * 7) As for the removal itself, deletion should only be unilateral when it's absolutely clear that it's a medical advice request. If there is any other possible way to interpret it, as there clearly is in this case, we should first reach a consensus here before acting.  The consensus may go either way, of course.  So, your unilateral removal itself was bad. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Please stop changing section headers, StuRat. It breaks anchors from watchlists and user contributions pages.  For that matter, if an editor creates an anchored link from the Desk, it breaks those too.  Further, stop instructing people to come here first before removing requests for medical advice.  That isn't what the policy says, for reasons which have been explained to you many, many, many times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because people CAN unilaterally delete things doesn't mean that it's always wise to do so, as has been explained to you many, many, many, many times. Changing section headers wouldn't be necessary if people would follow policy and use neutral section headers in the first place (and the broken links aren't all that bad, they still go to the right page, just not to the right section). StuRat (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which policy would that be again? - EronTalk 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This was covered not even a month ago, on this very page, by 74:


 * "The talk page guidelines state: Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.". An earlier section on editing others' comments also notes:"Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments." You may disagree with StuRat's assessment of the original question, but I believe his behavior here is well-supported by Wikipedia guidelines. –  7 4   01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) StuRat (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is Wikilawyering. An editor who removes a question for being a request for medical advice is under no obligation to express doubt he does not feel about his action. If the editor had had doubt, he should not have removed it, and that's what StuRat's modifications imply—that there was doubt, and that therefore the editor who did the removal was in the wrong. Stop changing other editor's words to make it seem like you are right and they are wrong. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For much the same reason as it would be impolite and unfair to start a section titled "Milkbreath's failure to read guidelines", I support the assertion that section titles should be neutral and not presume the result of the discussion. "Removal of X" is a fact (assuming the editor actually removed it); "Removal of medical advice X" is not. –  7 4   21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Mr. X moves the goalposts"? Now you're saying that factuality is the test. I thought that in Wikiworld nothing is fact except by consensus. But an editor's own report of what he himself did is not subject to test by consensus and is not fair game for surreptitious alteration. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please. (Undisputed) Facts are commonly considered neutral, but if you prefer, feel free to replace "a fact" with "neutral" in my comment above; the result (and my stance) remains the same. A section heading is not an appropriate place to post opinions. –  7 4   22:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To call it a "possible" request for medical advice is opinion. Why is the one opinion better than the other? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". –  7 4   01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a rhetorical question, and I'm sorry. That's my failing in this kind of thing, I tend to drift into sarcasm. The opinion that the question was not a request for medical advice but a "possible" one is just that, an opinion, and no amount of discussion will make it be otherwise. To put words in another editor's mouth is just plain wrong. If you want facts, the original editor wrote one thing, and now it says something else. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly … do not submit it." (I'm done arguing this point.) –  7 4   02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikilawyering, as I said at the outset, but I'll play along to the end. I think I'm entitled to one of your pleases with an eyeroll—we don't change other editors' words on talk pages. And "merciless" doesn't mean "indiscriminate". To make it read "possible" is not to make it more neutral, it's to make it support your "stance". It is therefore much farther from neutral than a simple declaration of what the editor has done. My presence in this discussion is proof of its inflammatory nature, and inflammatory is not neutral. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "My presence in this discussion is proof of its inflammatory nature..." ? Does that mean every discussion in which you participate is inflammatory ?  And why would that be ?  Also, I don't think you know what neutral means.  Saying it is or isn't medical advice would not be neutral, while saying it may be, that is, that's it's "possible medical advice", is neutral. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "To put words in another editor's mouth is just plain wrong." - This implies that the section headers of a talk page are owned by someone. They are not.  If they were, we would sign them.  As the quoted policy above stated: "Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property".  That is, anyone can edit the section title, if they have good reason to do so, such as to restore neutrality. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the original editor, let me be perfectly clear: I do not agree with the change in the section header that I created. I believe that it misrepresents my actions.
 * I do not remove questions that I believe are "possible" requests for medical advice. Were I to have some doubt about a question, I would either leave it in place for some other editor to deal with or I would raise the issue here, without removing the question. In that case, I would title the section something like "Possible request for medical advice."
 * Because I believed this was a clear request for medical advice, I removed it and posted here as a notification and as a courtesy, in accordance with policy. I did not post here to seek anyone's permission or approval for my actions.
 * Changing the subject heading makes it appear that I did something which I did not in fact do. It makes it appear that I removed a question that I thought might constitute a request for medical advice, when in fact I removed a question that I believed did constitute such a request. There is a significant difference to me. Deleting another editor's contribution is not something I take lightly.
 * The change to the section heading was not a helpful change, nor was it a change that added clarity. If anything, it removed it. - EronTalk 15:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you're acting as if you own the section header. They section title is not supposed to be "your words".  They are not to be used as a place for you to state your opinion, but rather a place for a neutral title about the discussion to follow.  We should not use section titles to state what you believe to be true (that it was a medical advice request), or what I believe to be true (that it was a request to improve an article), versus the actual facts (that you removed the Q because you believed it to be medical advice).  In the future, you might just want to say that the article was removed, and leave your reason for text below, if you can't phrase the reason in a neutral way in the title. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be direct: No, I won't. In the future, when I remove a question because it is a request for medical advice, I will title the report here "Request for medical advice removed." That is an accurate description of what I did.
 * I will also echo the advice of another editor that you review the content of WP:OWN. - EronTalk 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read that, as you seem to think you own the section title. So, you're informing us that you fully intend to directly violate the policy on neutrality on section titles, by stating your opinion as if it is an established fact ? StuRat (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you not noticed that in spite of my disagreement with your change to the section title, I have not changed it back? That hardly suggests I feel ownership of it. As to the rest, whatever. I am informing you that I disagree with your overly strict interpretation of neutrality in section titles and that I will not be guided by it in the future. Good day, sir. - EronTalk 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really no different than when news reporters refer to "alleged" murderers, at least until they've had a fair trial.  To do otherwise would bias the trial.  And, just as we are "innocent until proven guilty", we must "assume good faith" on the part of the OP, until proven otherwise. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly possible for an innocent individual with no nefarious intent or lack of good faith to nevertheless act in such a way as to contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When we remove a request for medical advice, we don't threaten the original poster with a block; we don't set him in the stocks; we don't mock his failure to follow the letter of our rules.  Instead we explain why his question was removed, we link to the policy, and we refer him to qualified experts who will be able to answer the question in a safe and professional manner.
 * The OP can be acting in completely good faith and still make an honest mistake. There are a lot of policies on Wikipedia, and we allow – indeed, encourage – new editors to jump in without reading them all.  Reporting and fixing newbie mistakes doesn't constitute an assumption of bad faith.  And where is the assumption of good faith due the experienced, competent, helpful Wikipedia editor who fixed the OP's error? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (unindented a bit) If I didn't assume good faith on the deletion, I'd have accused the deleter of making up reasons to delete other people's Q's. I didn't do that.  I believe that they thought it was a medical info request.  However, we should each be able to look beyond our own interpretation and see if there are other ways to read the Q.  And, when there are reasonable ways to read a Q that aren't a violation of our rules, we shouldn't just unilaterally delete it, and leave a nasty-gram to them telling them they've violated the rules.  We should ask for clarification from the OP.  I really believe it was a request to improve the article, in which case our response was completely inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)It was a good call, and the removal was done properly. Well done, EronMain.  I thought that this me-too was unnecessary when you reported the removal, but here we are.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. And I would find it more polite if you expressed yourself in terms of agreeing or disagreeing rather than telling me what I did "right and wrong" or "good and bad". - EronTalk 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. StuRat, you might like to have a read of WP:OWN. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you be any more specific about what you disagree with ? For instance, do you believe that we should use neutral section titles, in accordance with policy, or not ? StuRat (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe and I still believe that the the original question should have been removed as a request for medical advice. I don't think it was "possible" medical advice. I don't see a need to use weasel words in the section heading. I don't see it as a violation of neutrality to clearly state in the section heading what I did - remove a question - and why I did it (I considered it to be a request for medical advice.
 * I have now spend about ten times as long here on the talk page explaining myself as I spent originally removing the question. I am uncertain that this is the best use of my editing time here. - EronTalk 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you said "I believe it to be a medical advice Q" in the heading, that might be OK (although we should really keep our opinions out of headers, too). But "Medical advice question removed" is stating it as a fact that it is a medical advice Q, not your opinion.  That's both incorrect and non-neutral.  You said yourself "It may in fact be that the posted question was simply a poorly worded request for background information or for improvement of the article"; this is why we don't state it as a fact that it's a medical advice request.  And yes, I'm sure haphazardly removing things is quicker than a careful removal, but that's not much of an argument, is it ?  Simply stating your concern that it might be medical advice here, then letting a consensus develop, would have taken even less of your time.  StuRat (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would not be possible to fully answer (at least one of) the OP's questions without providing implicit medical advice. Good removal. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly would be possible to update the article, as the OP requested, without giving any medical advice. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How is that relevant to the deletion of the question from the reference desk? I don't think anyone would have deleted the OP's post if it was on the article's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I'd said before, we do sometimes get requests for article improvements on the Ref Desk. I myself have done this when we have two articles which seem to contain conflicting info, and some expert advice is needed on resolving the conflict.  Posting on the article's talk page is also a good idea, although infrequently visited articles aren't likely to get a response any time soon, if ever. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. But when requests for article improvements conflict with RD guidelines, I think the guidelines should take precedence. Also, while this was a request for improvement to an article, if we respond here, we have no way of knowing that the OP will not construe the response as advice (per my comment above). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we certainly could do better than just deleting the Q, as Eron did, if it was simply misplaced. I later copied it to the article's talk page, and provided a link from the Q.  Article improvements have now begun. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reccommended approach to perceived requests for medical advice
People get so fired up about this, don't they? This page alone is fair tribute to that, then there's the archive pages. I was thinking it'd be really nifty to make a nice, bright template that says something like: "Your question may be directed toward seeking medical advice. Specific requests for medical advice will not be answered. Please read the article example medical article and form your own opinion of the information there.  As to your specific requests for medical advice, please discuss these with your doctor."

This doesn't then prevent other refdeskers from weighing in about any non-advice aspect of the question, and highlights the question as one to be careful of in answering. It may then be more appropriate to edit inappropriate responses and move them to the discussion page with an explanation.

I was about to fiddle around & make a template, but I've gotta go do some work-work instead of just loafing about. I'll come back and have a bash, but don't feel the need to wait for me if you want to have a go yourselves. Matto paedia  Have a yarn  05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these? –  7 4   07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those say that the question has been removed, but Mattopaedia's suggestion is to leave the question in place but add a big think-twice-before-you-answer-this warning. I think it's a good idea. -- BenRG (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, when that approach was attempted before we still got a lot of people trying to actually offer medical advice. (Templates haven't been used, but personalized messages, polite requests, and stern admonitions have all be tried.)  We're stymied largely by the 'casual' responders; editors who aren't familiar with our policy and who often assume that prefacing a remark with 'I'm not offering medical advice, but...' is sufficient protection.  There's also a small group of editors who object to the rule against medical advice on principle, and who attempt to squeeze every possible loophole out of it.
 * If we leave the question in place – even with a warning template – we have to assume that every single editor who comes after will read, understand, and correctly follow the rules. We'll end up giving out medical advice whether we want to or not, as an inappropriate response may remain for hours before it is removed.  There will be edit wars when responses containing medical advice are removed and restored.  Threads will be derailed by long discussions that belong on this talk page rather than on the Desk.
 * In short, it's an idea with good intentions, but it won't work &mdash; it relies on every responder on the Desk to know and follow the rules correctly every time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, prefacing a remark with "This is not medical advice" would seem sufficient to escape the category of medical advice (as defined). Similar constructs are used by lawyers many places online, and they would presumably know whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient to avoid legal representation ("legal advice"). Further, Wikipedia's responsibility is to take reasonable measures to ensure that illegal responses are removed, not to ensure that no illegal responses are ever posted. I think the idea is worth some consideration; this recent question didn't devolve into a medical-advice free-for-all. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate our response and give Mattopaedia's suggestion a chance? I'd add in a small-text reminder to respondents that medical/legal advice will be deleted. –  7 4   17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My strongest objection to all the templates is that they state that the OP absolutely IS requesting medical advice, while in reality that's only the interpretation, and often misinterpretation, of one person. If a consensus had been reached that is was such a request, then such a template might be warranted.  Or, if people used more common sense and only unilaterally removed Q's that were absolutely clearly medical advice, as opposed to removing unilaterally those that might be under certain interpretations. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the topic above, we are not mind readers. The question I removed essentially asked "How do you treat [Condition X]?" The poster went on to ask why his or her husband and daughter did not contract the condition, clearly indicating that this wasn't a theoretical question - there was a real person with the condition. I can't imagine a more clear request for medical advice. All that was missing was the explicit statement "I have [Condition X]."
 * It may in fact be that the posted question was simply a poorly worded request for background information or for improvement of the article. If that is the case, then the original poster can respond to the removal and explain what he or she really wanted.
 * StuRat, you are almost unfailingly critical of any removal of medical advice questions. What would you consider to be an absolutely unambiguous request for medical advice that could be removed unilaterally? What would be a question that you would remove unilaterally? - EronTalk 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "My prescription is to take A pills of B, C times a day to treat D. But that doesn't seem to be working.  Is it OK if I take twice as many per day ?"  There is no possible interpretation of that Q which isn't a request for medical advice, so go ahead and remove it unilaterally (without a consensus). StuRat (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, "with presumed consensus" –  7 4   18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked (yep, still true) those templates were quite editable. Feel free to rewrite them in a less absolute, more neutral tone. –  7 4   18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, where do I go to edit them ? StuRat (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Typically, you can access transcluded templates by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top and scrolling down to the bottom of the page. I have also added the links here for direct access:
 * Template:RD-deleted
 * Template:RD-med
 * Template:RD-law
 * –  7 4   18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I edited each to take some of that bite out of them, but for some reason the RD-deleted template doesn't show my changes. Sometimes that happens for a few minutes, but hopefully it will update eventually. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it doesn't show your changes is because you only edited the template itself, not the description of what the template says. I addressed that in RD-deleted, but you might want to change the others also. (not needed)  Rockpock  e  t  21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Why is that template so much more complicated than the other two ?  Is there some reason it can't be the same as the other two ? StuRat (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea. the RD-deleted uses more complicated wikimagic, but I don't understand what advantage it confers. Rockpock  e  t  18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "magic" appears to have been added by Vector Potential with the helpful summary "edit" on 8 February 2008, then reverted and re-added on February 9th with the edit summary "testing". –  7 4   20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A request for medical advice is something along the lines of "how should I treat condition x?" Something like "What are the treatments for condition x?" is not a request for medical advice, it is a request for encyclopædic information. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only in the UK. In the US, it's a request for encyclopedic information.  In the US, if they dare spell it "encyclopædic", they risk being strangled with a ligature. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to look beyond that though - a simple rephrasing doesn't change what the question is. Because we're absolutely not allowed to offer diagnosis or treatment advice but we most certainly are allowed to leave legitimate questions unanswered - we have to err on the side of caution.  So, whilst it's usually OK to answer questions of the form "What is the treatment for X?" - we can't simply say that these are the magic words someone has to use in order to ask the "What should I do right now to treat my case of X?" question.  We have to use some judgement - and err on the side of NOT answering if we're in some doubt about the motives of the questioner.  I hope we can all agree that it's better to leave a general case of curiosity unanswered than it is to potentially do some great medical harm.  Even if someone isn't sick - if they have a particularly urgent/important need to know the answer to a "What is the treatment for X?" question then they should almost certainly STILL be talking to some kind of medical professional.  I urge both flexibility and caution. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot know the thoughts and motives of the questioner; assuming otherwise actually increases our liability exposure. Some law states that a means of communication cannot be held responsible for the content. An edited source of content, however, assumes responsibility for that content. So guessing what is and is not "medical advice" makes an implicit statement that we are accepting responsibility for content posted at the Reference Desk, eliminating a key legal defense if someone does something stupid with our "advice" (any advice, not just "medical advice"). We need a clear and unambiguous statement as to what constitutes "medical advice" (preferably from an outside source, e.g. Wikipedia's legal counsel) that we can set as policy and follow strictly to limit Wikipedia's liability. (IANAL, and this is definitely not legal advice.) –   7 4   22:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's legal protection is not the primary issue (they have that covered with Medical disclaimer). We just want to do the right thing to stop any misguided individuals from doing harm (in the case of offering advice) and getting harmed (in the case of following it). If no advice is sought and none offered, then we can't do any harm. To echo Steve above, were should err on the side of caution. It's better to leave a multitude of curious OPs with their questions unanswered than it is to cause a single case of medical harm. Rockpock  e  t  22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The logical conclusion to that line of thought is shutting down the Reference Desk. Have we set a date yet? –  7 4   21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. The logical conclusion is that if there is any reasonable doubt a question is a request for medical advice, then it should be removed first - by any editor in good standing - and discussed later. If the removal is later considered to be unreasonable by consensus, it can be added back. Rockpock  e  t  21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do point me to a question that you consider completely and utterly harmless. Hiding behind the "do no harm" mantra for (true) information is simply ridiculous&mdash;our failure to provide said information may do significant harm to the OP, the community, the world, the universe, etc. Any policy that requires mind-reading and prophecy is doomed to failure and abuse. –  7 4   21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here. I don't see any way this could reasonably be perceived as a request for medical advice and therefore see no reasonable scope for harm in answering it. You appear to mistake common sense for some mystical ability. Its not. If you feel unable to use sound judgment then don't remove anything, leave that to those of us who can. Rockpock  e  t  21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Too easy. If the OP really is seeing aliens then there is something seriously wrong with him/her, and the respondents downplaying that could lead to serious harm for him/her or others. But, in the spirit of the question, the response that "There are lots of bacteria in the gut that are very important" could induce the OP to attempt to increase his/her "important bacteria" count in some way that would be detrimental to his/her health (and potentially others through contagion). To have no risk we would need to remove this question. But then, if the OP really is seeing aliens a non-response could also lead to harm for him/her or others. The same logic applies to every question to a lesser or greater extent. –  7 4   22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then use your judgment to ascertain whether it applies to a greater extent or a lesser extent, and act accordingly. If you think the above example of pedantry is a reasonable interpretation then go ahead and remove the question. You'll soon find out that it is not. Rockpock  e  t  08:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(I have removed "Thank you and happy editing" from the ends of the RD-med and RD-law templates. I don't think we should be thanking people for violating the guidelines we clearly post at the top of each of the RD's - and: "happy editing" - bleagh!  Let's try and keep it a bit professional.   This is a stern warning to people who have broken our rules - let's keep it to the point - clean and simple. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Again, remember that these templates are placed because one person (who is often wrong) thinks the OP may have broken our rules. Most of the time, no consensus ever develops to support the placement of the template.  With this in mind, the templates shouldn't have nearly so much newbie-biting potential as they do.  Instead of saying "you've broken the rules", they should really say "one person thinks you've broken the rules, but there is no consensus that they are correct".  In those cases where a consensus against the OP does develop, a harsher template would actually be warranted. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The same could be said of every template on Wikipedia. They are rarely, if ever, placed by committee. The are placed by individuals who (should) use sound judgment. While templates should never be rude, neither should we skip around issues with maybes and wherefores. Rockpock  e  t  18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should we state something as an absolute fact, when it's only one person's opinion ? Would we apply such a lax standard to answers we give on the Ref Desk or to Wikipedia articles ? StuRat (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic
Marvellous! Now let's get back to my question. Here's my reasoning: I believe we should be leaving these questions on the RD because removing them does not do anything to inform people posting these sort of questions that its considered inappropriate. Yes, I know there's a bizillion other pages describing WP's policy regarding medical advice, legal advice and how many squares of toilet paper we should use per sitting, but I imagine most surf-by posters don't read that stuff because of a combination of WP:TLDR and WP:DGAF, and a splash of WP:NOOB. If we leave the questions there with a big, friendly, think-twice-before-you-answer-this type banner template, then would-be posters looking for a free consult, are not discouraged from asking a question, and they may not ask specific medical advice. Instead they may ask their question more generally. If, despite the warning, some other editor decides to answer the question, or part of it, in a way that might be construed as giving medical advice, then remove that response and post an explanation on the discussion page +/- the user's talk page. It just seems like a friendlier and more informative approach, to me. Cheers! Matto paedia  Have a yarn  03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Similar ideas have been proposed at least twice before on this very page. But, by all means, please go ahead and make your proposed template; at a minimum I support it. –  7 4   04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the roll-up/roll-down panel is a good way to hide the Q but still have it be available for those trying to understand why it's not allowed. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

Its at Template:RD medadvice

Matto paedia  Have a yarn  02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I don't really see any advantage to leaving the question in situ, in addition to the template. All that does is entice editors who disagree with the no medical advice policy to offer an answer. Then there will be edit warring over the answers rather than the questions. The template alone makes it perfectly clear what the problem is with the question, and if an OP is unable to work out what a request for medical advice is from that text, then leaving an example is hardly going to help. I like the template, though. Rockpock  e  t  02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My comments:


 * 1) I like including a way to refer them to an article. In some cases, we would want to refer them to multiple articles.


 * 2) It needs to say "request for medical advice" more prominently, such as in a title section.


 * 3) It also needs to notify the OP of their rights and what they can do if they feel the Q was removed in error.


 * 4) I had to look at the pic for a while to figure out that it's a stethoscope. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What WP:RIGHTS? Rockpock  e  t  02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite that irrelevant essay, which deals mainly with copyrights, Ref Desk posters do have certain rights, like reposting it, possibly reworded, 2 (or is it 3 ?) times, and explaining why it's not medical advice, either there or at this talk page (if the deleter created a talk page discussion). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you meant by the 'right' to repost a question 2 or 3 times? A question removed in good faith as a possible request for medical advice shouldn't be reposted until there has been an opportunity to discuss the question on this talk page.  Bear in mind, if you intended an oblique reference to WP:3RR that the 3RR explicitly doesn't entitle an editor to three reverts &mdash; particularly if those reverts contravene another Wikipedia guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any post which is unilaterally deleted without consensus may also be unilaterally restored. This is the "be bold, revert, discuss cycle".  Any Ref Desk guidelines which contravene general Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc., are unenforceable. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We simply have no "rights" on Wikipedia (except to vanish or fork). If an editor wishes to repost questions he is free to do so - if he chooses - until such a time that he is restricted by administrative action, blocking or protection. That isn't a right, it is exercising a privilege (which will be withdrawn if abused). Rockpock  e  t  17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you call them "rights" or "privileges" is just semantics, it has no effect on what OP's are allowed to do in response to a unilateral deletion of their post. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who think a right = a privilege, are those that tend to find themselves in conflict with others. There is more than a semantic difference between a courtesy and an entitlement. Rockpock  e  t  18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can make up your own word, if you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the OP can repost, rewrite the Q, include clarifications, and state why their request doesn't violate the rules. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not under dispute. What I do dispute is that we inform them of their "right" to do those things. Rockpock  e  t  21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, then we should notify the OP of their "ability" to do those things. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is no redress when an editor abuses the privilege of removing others' posts. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is always a mechanism of redress. If you think an editor is abusing their privilege, then draw an admins attention to the situation. If that doesn't resolve the issue to your satisfaction, there is WP:RfC, WP:MEDIATION and WP:ARBCOM. Rockpock  e  t  18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no confidence in the ability of any admin to deal with another admin who is out of line, RfC is toothless and largely pointless, and ArbCom, though better this year than last, shew little interest in the anything short of major disruption by admins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, there still are mechanisms in place that the community as a whole endorses. If you have no confidence on how the administration of a volunteer organization is administered you have to two choices: either volunteer for a position of influence and enact change yourself, or leave and volunteer somewhere else. Rockpock  e  t  18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Template version: –  7 4   03:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, My aim in leaving the question there for all to see is to attempt to teach by example. It's a regular occurrence that advice-style questions are asked, and we keep swatting them, then edit-warring over whether or not the OP sought advice.  I really think it's a moot point whether or not the OP is asking for advice.  The policy is that we don't give advice, regardless of the nature of the question.  I find this framework more useful to work within, because it applies equally, regardless of the phrasing of the question.  The teaching part is for OPs to see the style of questions that tend to get labelled as advice-seeking, so they may think, "Well, best not ask about it that way."  I don't think it matters which approach we take, there'll still be edit warring, does it really matter if its over the question or the response? I'd like to partially answer that by reiterating our policy is not to give advice.  AFAIK, there's no rule against asking questions badly, so perhaps its not appropriate for us to argue over the question.


 * Stu, You can use the optional comments field to add additional pages if you like. I've made the medical advice sentence bold, and made the picture bigger.  I've put a bit of fine print in about "rights", for want of a better term.


 * Thanks to both of you for your input. Here's the new version:


 * It would seem to me that the "Any response containing prescriptive information or medical advice will be removed." line is aimed at editors and not the OP. Would it make more sense to put it in the bottom section? –  7 4   03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thanks green back-to-front 4 guy! New version:


 * I am of the opinion that this new suggested guideline will very quickly lead to the following scenario: OP wants medical advice. OP asks question. Editor wants to give advice despite policies against it. OP's question gets templated, which invites them to "to re-phrase your question." OP rephrases question to a hypothetical (or editor, helpfully, does it for them). Editor now replies to question with medical advice disguised as a hypothetical and, when it is rightfully removed, argues it is no longer a request for medical advice because its been rephrased. How exactly is this anything other than helping editors to wiki-lawyer around our guidelines? Changing the phrasing does not change the fact advice is being sought and offered!
 * I applaud your intentions, Mattopaedia, and I agree that it is the answers, not the questions, that are the real issue here. But I firmly believe this suggestion will (unwittingly) make the problem worse. Rockpock  e  t  06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this discussion, and only came here after seeing this template in use. Personally, I think the present form is much too large and gaudy.  We don't need to calling special attention to these sections, and even if we did want to do that, it isn't really Wikipedia's style to have multiple layers of colored borders.  The content should be presented to the question asker in a direct and unambiguous way, but we don't need a giant box and graphic to do that.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. I understand that there may sometimes be problems in deciding whether or not to remove a question. But if it needs removing, just remove it. People already get prominent warnings not to ask certain kinds of questions. If they don't want to read those prominent warnings, tough. If one more warning is thought necessary, then create Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous_or_whatever/Editnotice and put the short, simple warning there; people will then read it above the text box in which they ask their question. But no "Unsuitable question RIP" announcements are needed. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this template is different from a RIP; See here. Several respondents have provided meaningful answers that don't include medical advice (such as citing medical research that the OP was unable to find). If we'd simply removed the question outright then none of those responses would have been possible. While I admit that the current banner could use some… streamlining, I think it is a valuable way to handle requests that aren't necessarily seeking medical advice but which may draw medical advice, without dismissing the question out-of-hand. –  7 4   13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the template is aimed at warning editors as much as informing the OP, I think a little color and structure make it stand out so that editors hopefully won't ignore it as just another response. Having an easily-recognizable "look" also allows editors to get the meaning at a glance; something that bare-text does not provide. Compare how often you read the text of a standardized message box vs. identifying it by its image. That said, the template could certainly be simplified somewhat while retaining these properties. –  7 4   13:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your feedback!


 * Rockpocket, I'm firmly convinced that the scenario you're describing has been happening, and will continue to until the demise of the refdesk. It's easy to figure out the style of question that will attract this kind of response, like the subway episode below (I'll comment on that seperately).  So its also easy enough to figure out how to phrase a question so it sounds like no advice is being sought, when it really is.  That's why I have a problem with removing questions - it's impossible to tell the difference between an innocent question on a medical subject, and a covert attempt to receive free medical advice.  This happens in real-life too.  Ask a doctor a medical question at a social function and watch them glaze over.  I've learned to be careful in how I answer these sort of questions IRL and on-wiki.  Most of the regular editors here, I think, have learnt to give appropriately informative, reliable answers (such as referring to articles) without stepping over the line of giving advice.  Its sometimes hard to make the distinction, but fortunately we all watch each other pretty closely here.  My reasoning is to draw attention to a question as one that can be interpreted as seeking medical advice, and urging caution in responding to it.  The suggestion that an OP might like to rephrase their question, in my opinion, is simply to make the process more open.  You may want to call that wikilawyering, I prefer to see it as operating within Wikipedia guidelines. (Comes from dealing with health care bureaucrats all the time)


 * Hoary, please see my comments to Rockpocket, and my earlier posts in this thread - it's not about the question, its about the answers we give, and whether or not they should be removed. The 'shrooms question Green back-to-front 4 guy highlighted is a pretty good example of this.


 * Dragons Flight and Green back-to-front 4 guy, I designed the template on a large monitor. When I look at it on my laptop, I agree it is ...prominent.  I increased the size of the picture because poor old StuRat couldn't see it properly.  I reduced the size of the note to editors because of the size of the template.  I'm happy if you want to simplify the colour scheme (maybe I did go a little nuts there, but it looked pretty!), and if anyone knows how to make the picture automatically scalable go ahead and modify it.  I think it is important to draw some attention to these questions, because they need to be handled carefully, and the graphic template does this much more effectively than a textual one could.  The template, like all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress, so if you can improve on my work, then go ahead!  Cheers,  Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all. I didn't notice this discussion until I made the changes, so I'm doing this ex post facto (har, har). I agree that the template is prominent. The pink/cyan/power blue color scheme is over the top, and the size of the template is indeed excessive. I've a little experience at streamlining template, so I attacked it with my usability chainsaw, as follows: The result is here: As you can see, it is still eye-catching, without being something of a sledge hammer. I hope I didn't step on too many toes, but there it is. – ClockworkSoul 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I played with about 10 different permutations of the image before concluding that it really adds no information to the template, so I removed it. Of all the changes I made, I most expect this one to be reverted because, well, people like images.
 * 2) Each individual cell had every possible bell and whistle on it, including individually defined color borders and background colors. I removed some excessive bordering and scaled back the color explosion somewhat.
 * 3) Much of the text was redundant, so I streamlined that considerably. The message is the same, but conveys it in roughly 1/3 of characters.

Request for consensus
Thanks Clockwork, I was really disappointed to see the picture go, but it is still prominent enough to attract attention, and I like your rewording.

On this and other threads, various editors have indicated varying degrees of support for the idea. Without putting it to WP:RfC, can we get some sort of consensus here about trialling this method for a while? 74 suggested a week, but I thought a month would be better, since it is subject to the randomness of postings, a week may not be sufficient time to gauge any effect.

Just to clarify, the rationale for use is as follows:
 * 1) We cannot determine with any certainty the reason behind an OP's request for medical information, regardless of how it may be worded. Individual editors may form their own opinions, but those will necessarily differ from many other editors.
 * 2) Leaving the question as is on the RD prevents acrimonious and devisive threads developing in the discussion page as to the OP's intent, and gives the OP the assumption of good faith.
 * 3) Removing a question may discourage an OP from making further enquiries, and for that reason, may be seen as uncivil. Subsequent discussion also tends to become uncivil, as per points 1 and 2.
 * 4) The Wikipedia guidelines currently say we should not give medical advice (emphasis added). If we assume good faith on the part of the OP, then we assume the OP is aware it is not appropriate to seek medical advice, and we should provide a response that is informative but non-advisory.  It may be easier to decide if the responses are advisory or informative only.

Method of use: Matto paedia  Have a yarn  23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Any question an editor believes could be construed as a request for medical advice should have the template banner placed immediately under the subsection heading. To do this, add  Article ~  to the beginning of the thread, where "Article" is a relevant article to the question (  and  not required), and "Other Comments" is a free text field for further information, including links to other articles (  and  required).
 * 2) Any response that is prescriptive (eg "You should try this...") or offers a prognostic or diagnostic opinion (particularly where a single diagnosis is given, and multiple diagnoses are possible), should be moved to the RD discussion page, with a comment to that effect in the RD thread, and a comment on the reason for moving the response on the discussion page. A possible exception to this may be where an exhaustive differential diagnosis is given and the OP is advised to see their doctor.

Please indicate your position below:


 * Support. Favouring a one month trial. Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I appreciate Mattopaedia's good faith efforts to resolve this, but the guidelines are very clear. They do not say we should not "give" medical advice; they say "the Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice." Leaving medical advice requests in place is a wide open invitation for editors to provide medical advice while wiki-lawyering their way around the guidelines to say that they aren't really giving medical advice. - EronTalk 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming bad faith re editors. Why? Phil_burnstein (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose --Milkbreath (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Provisional Support. I believe a trial is warranted. I don't think we can accurately predict the results at this point. Perhaps a 1-month or 10-question (whichever comes first) trial? –  7 4   03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. One month trial. StuRat (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The guidelines as they stand are quite clear. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Per 7 4    Phil_burnstein (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * (ec) Please pardon the length of my comments.
 * Where does this idea that 'assuming good faith' means 'assume perfect knowledge of Wikipedia policies' come from, or the notion that correcting another editor's error – or informing them of a policy of which they may not have been aware – is in some way incivil? It's a pernicious meme in these discussions.  Removing a question which violates our policies – just like the correction of any other error on Wikipedia – need not be incivil nor does it represent an assumption of bad faith.  Care should absolutely be taken to make sure that comments left for the original poster are not bitey, and that the reason (including both the existence of the policy, and the reasons for that policy) are explained appropriately.
 * I agree that in general it would be presumptuous to try to read the mind of any Wikipedia editor, and that attempting to divine the intent of a poster is fraught with pitfalls. Fortunately, that is not what the present guideline calls for.  Instead, when considering whether or not a question should be removed, we look only to the wording of the question asked.  Specific criteria are provided.  Elsewhere on this page, Kainaw describes an excellent and straightforward practical test: Can the question be answered completely without offering a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment suggestion?  If not, it should be pulled.  This is an exercise in common sense, not psychoanalysis.
 * I'm afraid I can't buy the "prevents acrimonious and devisive threads developing" on the RD talk page argument. Instead of having a single discussion about a given question's removal, we'll have a new thread for every answer removed.  While it's possible that the conflicts will die down out of sheer exhaustion, I have my doubts.  It's very likely that the lone effect will be a reduction in the quality of the process' outcome, as editors get tired of, or fail to follow, the multiple fragmented discussions on the talk page or bicker over premature declarations of consensus.
 * I am utterly gobsmacked extremely concerned at the suggestion that a comment offering "an exhaustive differential diagnosis" might be considered acceptable, even if that advice is accompanied by direction to consult a physician. The majority of editors at the Desks are not trained or qualified to do a proper differential, and few who are certainly know better than to do so here.  That proposal is akin to saying "We should allow medical advice, but only if it's good and thorough".  Few of us are competent to make that judgement; those who do have the appropriate qualifications almost certainly know enough to take their medical licenses and run the other way if asked to endorse the anonymous internet opinions of armchair physicians.
 * Finally, this approach has one serious – I would in fact say fatal – deficiency. Under the present system, only a single post (the original question) has to be evaluated and (if necessary) removed.  Under the proposed system, every single response must be carefully scrutinized.  Questions more than a few hours old tend to receive less attention that questions that are at the very bottom of each Desk's page.  Medical advice might be offered and not detected (and removed) for several hours, if at all.  Even if an offer of medical advice is removed, there is no way to determine if it was read (or worse, acted upon) by the original poster.  The purpose of the medical advice guidelines – the prevention of harm to all involved parties – is badly undermined.  The current procedure only requires that one person correctly recognize a problem question and remove it for further discussion.  (Even if that person makes an error, the question can be restored without harm taking place.)  The proposed change,however, only works if everyone knows, understands, and follows the medical advice rules.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "differential diagnosis" comment is off-base; Mattopaedia, would you be willing to strike this "possible exception"?

Fair enough. Done Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While the current "policy" is intended to prevent medical advice, it requires the "evaluator" to make a judgment call not on whether a response *is* medical advice, but whether a question's responses *will be* medical advice. This can be wrapped up as "Can the question be answered completely without offering a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment suggestion?" but then we're left to speculate and debate what a "complete" answer is (and it might be worth noting that Reference Desk guidelines don't require complete answers either).
 * Another common theme (or, if you prefer, "meme") in these discussions is the "do no harm" rhetoric. Nobody has yet managed to convince me that requests for "medical advice" are the only questions capable of causing "harm", nor that any risk whatsoever is justification for removal. I stand by my assertion that, if absolutely no harm may be done, the only possible action is to close the Reference Desk. If we take a less hard-line approach to minimize (but not eliminate) potential harm then the same standards can be applied evenly across all questions, medical advice or otherwise. This doesn't mean I want any OP to come to harm (far from it); I just object to this overly dramatic appeal to emotion being used to arbitrarily remove a particular category of questions. Why are "Can I survive a fall from an airplane without a parachute?" and "How do I juggle chainsaws?" less dangerous questions than "Will chicken soup help a cold?"? –  7 4   02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're at best only substituting one opportunity to display good judgment and common sense with another. Better to use that judgment once and be done by removing the question than to argue interminably over every little point every time. The template should be put back the way it was (maybe a little gentler in tone, though) because what's to stop an editor from linking to his pet cure? Any wiggle room seems to result in a tango. Not you, Tango. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No templates were harmed in the making of this additional template.  :-)   –   7 4   02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to striking the "differential diagnosis" statement, I'd like to see a provision to remove questions that are unanswerable without providing medical advice. I realize that such a clause might be abused to remove everything (defeating the purpose of a trial), but I *do* believe some questions shouldn't be asked or answered at the Reference Desk. –  7 4   03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? There's more than one way to skin a cat.  I see no reason why we can't be flexible. In fact, I think that sort of flexibility is crucial on the reference desk.  The guidelines do not now, and never will, provide a suitable approach for every situation.  I am happy to work with both methods, because I can conceive that a situation might arise as 74 described.  Anyone else? Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions?
So, after some arbitrary period of time we have a small majority favouring a trial. What does that mean? Do we trial it now, or do we not, or do we just accept that different editors may have different approaches to this and as long as no-one's actually giving advice, whatever method we use is OK, or do we go for a third opinion? Matto paedia  Have a yarn  06:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reference_desk/Humanities
I think he asked the question so he could make his follow-up comment. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's possible, but certainly not the only possibility, so I'm not willing to call the OP a troll. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at an editor's history and see that they do practically nothing in article space, that should be a red flag. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Half of one's edits being to the mainspace is suspiciously low? I'd better get my act together before I get accused of trolling, then. Algebraist 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, we don't limit reference desk services to Wikipedia contributors with X article-space edits. I'd want to see a significantly more flagrant violation or a continued pattern of behavior before any labels were applied. And I'm pretty sure my article-space contributions fall short of somebody's standard, somewhere, but that hardly makes me a troll. –  7 4   20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I still think that's what it was. Don't you? --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I apparently failed to communicate this above: No. –  7 4   21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if it was. However it would be the sort of thing I'm willing to do anything about without more evidence of consistent behaviour in this regard Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Computer reference desk: ban evangelicizing for different operating systems
Frequently people misuse a question about some problem with eg Windows as a pretext to try to persude you to use a different operating system. This gets very irritating, and contributes nothing to answering the question.

Regardless of the intrinsic merits of the other operating system, it is very counter productive and in fact actively dissuades rather than persuades.

It is also an unrealistic idea - I'm not going to throw away the months of work getting Windows how I like, and have more months of work finding out to use another operating system and getting it how I like, with its own set of problems and bugs, just to solve a small problem.

Its like having the desk haunted by evangelists who try to convert you to their religion at every opportunity.

Wikipedia is not the place for this harassment. So I suggest banning them. 89.240.206.134 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this can be annoying, at times. But there are other times when this may be warranted.  If the O/S isn't specified by the OP, answers for different O/S's are quite appropriate. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been accused of pushing Linux in the past by people who are so quick to start a fight that they do not read my answer. For example, if a person asks for a "free" program to convert a video from some format to another and the answers given aren't worth much, I will note what the Linux program is and suggest that the OP do a search for a Windows version of the program.  If you read the answer, I am pointing out that there is a free program to do it in another operating system, so it is likely that the same program exists in some form in Windows (and, since I don't use Windows, I have no interest in hunting down Windows ports of every program I use).  This notion of harshly jumping on anyone who hints at anything other than Windows has been terrible at times.  I've seen people chastised for suggesting programs like GIMP.  Since there is a Linux version of GIMP, we are apparently not supposed to suggest the use of it to Windows users. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look: we're volunteers, offering to help people free of charge. Our guidelines include neutrality, which we somewhat manage to achieve. Our guidelines do *not* include stifling a particular type of response or suggestion because you personally find it offensive. The response to this question was friendly though not overly helpful; I get that. It was not, however, justification for these responses. If you don't particularly care for the responses you receive, feel free to ignore them. If you feel that our Reference Desk is full of "harassment" then I suggest you take your questions and comments elsewhere. I fully support suggesting alternatives to everything from Algorithms to Web browsers, including operating systems when relevant. (I don't know if I've ever suggested Linux before, but I certainly will if I deem it an appropriate response.) –  7 4   22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was this (proffered immediately above by the ever-helpful 74) an example of how "people misuse a question about some problem with eg Windows as a pretext to try to persude you to use a different operating system" and of "harassment"? Or are you asking about some other edits? If you're asking about other edits, please supply the "diff" for one that you find particularly obnoxious. (For a "diff", just look in the "history" page for the particular reference desk page, ask to see how versions differ, and when you've found an offending edit, copy its URL and plonk it here, like  edit this. Discussion is likely to be more productive when all agree on what it is that they're talking about. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 89.240, we certainly can't/won't/shouldn't block people for those posts, that would be totally contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. But I'd like to second the request that people not make them. I'm repeatedly surprised that the people who post these replies don't understand, even after the fact, why they offend people. It's like saying "have you considered moving to Europe?" to someone who's having trouble with their local DMV. Maybe you'd have fewer bureaucratic hassles in the UK, maybe you'd have more, it's hard to predict. Either way it's ridiculous to suggest the move. Moving to a new country is a big deal, it's not something people do in response to a minor inconvenience on the advice of a stranger on the Internet. There's not much you can do in reaction to that kind of suggestion except get offended or laugh it off as a joke. There seems to be a huge gulf between what "switching to Linux" means to Linux geeks people who are already using Linux and what it means to typical computer users. -- BenRG (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response puzzles me. First, I see almost no parallel between (a) changing the OS on your computer (or adding an OS to it and using the new one) and (b) moving to a different country. Secondly, I have never been addressed or (so far as I know) referred to as a "geek" and regard myself as a typical computer user, yet I routinely move among Linux, OS X and Windows. Thirdly, running such programs as Firefox under Linux is virtually the same as running them under Windows (or OS X). Fourthly, the typical (or anyway the stereotypical) computer user makes little use of the command prompt and so is untroubled by real differences between COMMAND.COM and (for example) bash. Of course none of this is to deny that there are some programs that work on one of these OSes and not on another. -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, "Linux geek" was clearly the wrong term here. I didn't mean it as an insult. I think of volunteering on the ref desk as a pretty geeky thing to begin with.


 * I think we just have very different ideas of the difficulty of switching operating systems for "the average user". For the many people who essentially use their computers as typewriters the operating system hardly matters, but those people are never going to be able to install an OS on their own, whether Windows or Linux, no matter how friendly the installer. They'll need a more savvy user there to help. Furthermore, these are the kind of people who call tech support, and tech support probably won't help them when they have a nonstandard OS, so they will be dependent long-term on other people for help. It's a pretty big deal. People who use a larger variety of apps, possibly including expensive vertical apps, may be more computer savvy but obviously have their own set of problems with moving. Additionally, suggesting a move to Linux as a way of avoiding malware doesn't make much sense, at least in this context. Linux offers two kinds of protection against malware: no native support for running Windows software, and putting you in an unprivileged user account by default. The first of these is more of a negative than a positive for most people, and the second is just a difference of installation defaults (pre-Vista). Some Windows software won't work in an unprivileged account, such as some games, but that's generally software that won't run in Linux either and for which it's likely that no suitable Linux replacement is available. If the original poster was willing to go to such lengths to avoid the startup-scan delay, then I would suggest just disabling the startup scan, which is probably not doing anything useful anyway. Antivirus software exists mainly to protect the people who use computers as typewriters from running every DancingFrog.exe program that people send them. If you don't run unsolicited executables, don't download software from web sites that you wouldn't buy a used car from, use XP's built-in firewall, and keep up to date with security patches then the antivirus software probably isn't providing any added value. I suppose this should go in the original thread and not here, but anyway, switching to Linux still seems an extremely disproportionate response to the OP's problem to me. Even if you don't feel that way, I think in point of fact many people do.


 * And I suppose I should add that it's rude to complain about advice freely offered, and I can understand people taking offense at that too. -- BenRG (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I have a thick skin. It's rare for me to take offense at anything. (Well, five minutes or so within the movie Borat....) I understand that although a "geek" used to be the man in US funfairs who stereotypically bit the heads off chickens, it has now supplanted "nerd" as a term of mild condescension or even affection, so certainly no offense on that score. But I'm not a "geek" in any sense in view of my sketchy (or worse) knowledge of much material relevant here. &para; You make some good points. However, you also say things with which I disagree. If I think of installing Linux in the context of your average Windows-using questioner, I don't have in mind Gentoo (which I've never tried) or similar; instead, I'm thinking primarily of Ubuntu and its derivatives. Installing this is, I think, easy. In fact, it's remarkably similar to installing Windows: you just have to be patient while it guesses what hardware there is. One difference is that Windows assumes (demands?) that it is all you want, whereas a Linux distro does not; and perhaps the way it phrases the question may puzzle or even alarm the inexperienced person (I don't remember). Another is that a Linux distro asks one or two more questions that Windows doesn't, such as whether you want Ctrl and CapsLock keys switched around. I am not claiming here that Ubuntu and the like are happy with all printers, scanners, etc. &para; I understand that a great many people need to run such programs as Illustrator that require a proprietary OS (or a flawless simulation thereof). However, the great majority of the people I know use their computers for simple processing of words, simple spreading of sheets, viewing photos and PDF files, browsing, blogging, MyFaceBookery, and emailing. (No, no games. Maybe my part of the world is atypical, but here games are played on handheld devices.) Additionally, they must be able to manipulate files produced by, and produce files manipulable by, MS Office: fairly unproblematic, at least if the stuff done isn't intricate. And they have fast net connections and -- thanks to such (admittedly advertising-laden) sites as zamzar.com and resizr.com -- can do more and more of what they want online. Well, Windows, OS X or Linux will suffice. (And I suppose that *BSD would too, though I've never tried it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is you're presuming two things. 1) The person is savvy enough to install Windows. The reality is a lot of people are not. The fact that installing Ubuntu is as simple as installing Windows is therefore somewhat irrelevant. Also most of these people are barely comfortable enough with administring and using Windows, and whether you like it or not, switching to another OS is different enough that they are unlikely to want to do it. Particularly since with Linux it's likely to be far harder to find someone in real life who can help them 2) Despite that the person is ill informed enough not to have considered Linux/*BSD. The reality is most people who can easily install and use a new OS have likely already considered Linux. I have. Indeed I've even install FreeBSD before and for that matter Hackintosh on an AMD. I've decided none of them are for me. The reality most people who are comfortable with installing and learning a new OS are likely to be similar to me. They've ruled it out. Perhaps they're wrong here, but pushing it to them when they're asking for other advice is far more likely to annoy them and make them avoid Linux then use it. And BTW, make no mistake. Anyone who does administer their own computer is likely to find learning to use Linux a chore. Of course it's not extremely difficult and for some it's worth it. For many it's not. Even learning Vista is a task in itself and that is (or can be) far more similar to Windows XP then Linux or *BSD ever will. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When you talk of "pushing" Linux, do you just mean "suggesting", or do you mean something stronger? If the latter, please give one or two relevant diffs, because I haven't recently seen any putatively obnoxious "evangelism", whether for Linux or for anything else. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny you should mention that; I gave almost that exact response to a question that I thought merited it. Are you suggesting that doing so was offensive? –  7 4   13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (I think it was fine given the context.) -- BenRG (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is my own perspective bias, I do seem to see many responses that are "Well you could do easy fix X or just switch to Linux!" which is the kind of advise that should be discouraged. Changing operating systems, especially for a basic user, is an unneccessarily over the top response for a simple problem, akin to amuptating the arm for having a hangnail. While it is true that Linux offers many (often free) alternatives to Windows, people work with what they are comfortable with, even if it is an inferior product. Livewireo (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again with the oh-so helpful analogies. Only in a fictional world where amputated limbs could be regrown at will and body modification was taken to the extreme would switching to Linux be "akin" to amputating an arm. FWIW, I don't think every computer problem response warrants a "or you could switch to Linux!" rider, but I strongly believe that providing alternatives is at least neutral and sometimes beneficial. Anyone is free to ignore or dispute responses that they personally disagree with, but no one should attack or censor responses because they personally disagree with them. –  7 4   20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is noted but preaching the good word of Linux should be a last resort rather than the first. It is an extreme alternative for a basic user, which many of our advice-seekers are. Livewireo (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually don't disagree with that (other than the unnecessarily inflammatory "preaching the good word"). I'd like to think that is how we generally handle things, but we admittedly don't always succeed. In all such cases, though, the correct course of action is to take your complaint to the respondent's talk page and/or provide a refutation, and both of these actions should be handled civilly. –  7 4   23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I won't not support a ban on such responses, I would generally discourage people from making them particularly in response to minor issues (Kainaw's sort of responses are fine) and also feel 89's response to Hoary is largely appropriate (the comment at the end was a bit uncivil and unnecessar), even justified. I think BenRG makes a good point. Few people are going to suggest you emigrate if you complain about some problem in your country. Indeed I think most would agree such a response is ridiculous. While changing OS is obviously nowhere nearly as big, it's still a very big deal for the vast majority of people. Perhaps a better example would be if you have a minor annoyance at work and someone suggests you change job or if you have a minor issue with your partner/spouse and someone suggests you break up. Let's not forgot most people who aren't aware of Linux don't even know how to install Windows themselves. For those who are more computer adept and are aware of Linux and could likely install and set it up fine they've likely already ruled it out for whatever reason (may be they can't be bothered learning a new OS, may be they've already got all the programs they want and don't want to have to change). Either way, it's only a very small minority who are likely to find such responses helpful. Remember just because you're a volunteer and trying to help doesn't mean people who are seeking help don't have a right to feel frustrated when you provide a answer that is next to useless. Many people don't like to ignore a useless reponse (perhaps more so in forums and usenet then here) because they fear if others think it has already been answered they won't get so many useful responses. To use my personal pet peeve, I sometimes in the past have asked about computer products. In the past I used to specifically mention either that I live in New Zealand or that I don't want other suggestions. Despite this, it wasn't uncommon I would get useless responses giving me New Egg links. Nowadays I've taken to specifically mentioning that I don't want alternative suggestions and that I live in New Zealand so New Egg links are useless to me. (This usually works but even then not always.) I'm not suggesting there is a simple line between 'helpful' and 'unhelpful' and there are of course many cases when you simply don't know if your suggestion will be helpful. Indeed I'm sure I've given many responses here and elsewhere that people have found useless. But I think a little common sense will go a long way. Ask yourself, is it likely the OP has not properly considered (whether because unaware or under misapprehension about) my suggestion? If not, is it likely my suggestion will be helpful? Particularly if the OP has specifically asked about (or excluded something) or if the suggestion is drastic (changing an OS) to a minor issue then the answer is probably no. If you still believe your answer may be of use, then phrase it in a non-pushy way where you recognise the issues. For example, rather then rambling on about the advantages os another OS just offer it as a suggestion and acknowledge that it will be a big change but suggest it may be worth it. Similarly if someone has ruled out something, politely ask if you may know the reason. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Remember just because you're a volunteer and trying to help doesn't mean people who are seeking help don't have a right to feel frustrated when you provide a answer that is next to useless." I strongly disagree. There is no "right to feel frustrated" and demanding a volunteer provide you with information *you* deem worthy reeks of entitlement. I try to provide relevant information, but I expect civility in return. Is that really too much to ask? –  7 4   05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nil Einne: While changing OS is obviously nowhere nearly as big [a deal as emigrating], it's still a very big deal for the vast majority of people. [...] If you still believe [a suggestion to change OS] may be of use, then phrase it in a non-pushy way where you recognise the issues. For example, rather then rambling on about the advantages os another OS just offer it as a suggestion and acknowledge that it will be a big change but suggest it may be worth it. I keep reading assertions that changing OS is a big deal. They're backed up less often with evidence than with analogies. I don't think it is a big deal; or rather, I don't think it need be a big deal. Neither do I pretend that all will necessarily go smoothly. &para; Like 74 (but much less knowledgably or energetically), I try to provide relevant information. And I suppose I expect civility in return. On the other hand, if I don't get civility in return I don't much care. What does surprise me is that when somebody then makes a charge that persons unspecified in edits unspecified have "rammed" an unsuitable suggestion "down the throat" of a questioner (here) or have engaged in "harassment" (here), this leads to soul-searching, etc. I have so far seen no sign that anybody has attempted either to ram anything down anybody's neck or to harass. I've asked for diffs but none has been forthcoming. The IP who made both those charges is still around (e.g. here); but if he or she isn't sufficiently interested in this business to elaborate, I see no reason for this non-issue to take any more of people's time. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With one or two overly-well-known-exceptions, we don't ban things here, so this proposal seems to me to be a non-starter.


 * Yes, proselytizing in any of its forms can be annoying. We already discourage that sort of thing rather strongly in the general RD guidelines:


 * Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.


 * In general, if an answer is not useful, it's up to the original questioner to decide. I don't think it makes sense (it would certainly set a very bad precedent) to try to suppress an entire class of answers as being not possibly useful to any recipient.


 * (And, though I guess I'll reveal a bias here, I personally think that if fewer people were locked into the straitjacket that is Microsoft Windows, if more people were aware of its glaring deficiencies and were willing to honestly consider the technically superior alternatives, the computing world would be a much better place.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shrooms - Advice removed
I removed the following response because I believe it constitutes advice on how to consume a substance that is unsafe, and illegal in many jursdictions.

OR: A few friends have had bad experiences that "changed their life". I heard of one person who could "never quite get out of the trip" and deeply regret doing them. There are also numerous positive experiences with positive life changing experiences. If you or anyone you know takes psychoactive mushroom, try to gather as much info as possible on the specific species consumed, try to get advice from the seller and if possible, do it legally, it ensures to some degree quality and good advices. Try to always have someone "clean" and responsible if it's a group experience. Have the experience in a secure place, not in public, if outside in nature make sure you have emergency phone numbers. In any case make sure you have everything you might need at hand: water, crisps, cola, smokes, anything you might miss and might ruin your experience. You can expect long term, chronic use of any hard drug (well hard in the sense that it is really intense and mental) to have serious repercussions, especially social and psychological such as desocialization, exacerbation of preexisting psychological conditions (depression, paranoia, mood swings, ...). Please post relevant links you might find online, thank you. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Matto paedia  Have a yarn  06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He did provide some extremely cogent advice, though: don't even think about tripping without first stocking up on those most crucial of supplies: crisps, cola and smokes! ;) Rockpock  e  t  06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but perhaps the advice should have been truncated to "Don't even think about tripping." Perhaps even more cogent?  Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt, I am the OP, and I can assure you I was not asking for medical advice when I asked the question. Rather, I was looking for links/sources/information regarding the effects of long term use of mushrooms...information is readily available for almost every other illicit drug that deals with the side effects and such of long term abuse that the RD helpers could (without violating medical advice policy) link to; I could not find any/much information about mushroom use and I find the RD to be an excellent resource when all else fails. Thanks for your concern though, and I promise, cross my heart, that I won't take any of the responses given as medical adivce ;)...Even the one you removed. --71.117.38.74 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. You may be aware I'm currently in the process of trying to effect some change in the way "perceived medical advice" questions are being handled by the refdesk.  I accept your word that you weren't looking for advice, but even if you were it shouldn't really matter.  What matters is the way people respond to these sort of questions - case in point: the response I moved to this thread.  It seems to me this strategy worked out quite well - you got your information, and no "advice" remains in the thread for your post.  And the links posted may be useful to others, which wouldn't have happened if your question was removed.  Thanks again,  Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  03:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I posted the offending response. I'm sorry if you thought it was out of line Mattopaedia. Re-reading it I was expecting to think the same way, but then even though it's certainly not as well referenced and maybe neutral as the other answers provided to the original question, I still think it was a worthwhile answer. Although the question was more about long term use, I added advice on how to render the occasional consumption safer because I wasn't sure if that was also underlying in the question. I'm not quite sure "Don't even think about tripping." would be a much more balanced advice. I won't try to go into any kind of justification for using psychoactive drugs although a long case could definitely be made. I tried to give a short but balanced testimony on the experience of a few people I know who have done mushrooms. I disagree with your statement that I provided advice on HOW to consume the substance - I feel like you're accusing me of showing someone how to dissolve heroine. I only pointed out some ways to make an experience safer. Your point about psychoactive mushrooms being unsafe is pretty much the problem of the original question and its lack of serious references. I think you should have justified more extensively your removal. I understand, though, that it could have been taken as an encouragement, somehow, to consume the stuff even though it is actually mainly pointing out the negative effects of long term mushroom use. I still think your removal was mainly spurred by some righteous moral view that 'drugs are bad' but I would greatly appreciated if you could show me I'm wrong. If you would like to we can continue this discussion on my talk page at user:Keria. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK.  Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the tenet of no censorship relevant here. After all methods of taking drugs is merely a form of information, and would not restricting information to the masses be some form of censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.236.44 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed (possible) request for medical advice
I removed a request for medical advice here.

The OP experienced the sudden, unexplained onset of a serious symptom (coughing, difficulty breathing) and asked us to explain what might have caused it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief, it was not a request for medical advice. Many people felt the same and left the carriage all at the same time.  I was talking to them about it outside.  But still, if you want to call it that, go ahead – I won't revert.  By the way, I resent slightly the way you refer to me as "the OP", as though I'm just some fly-by-night n00b poster, rather than a regular and experienced RD editor. --Richardrj talkemail 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense was intended; we use 'OP' all the time on this talk page to refer to the 'original poster' of a question. The idea is to de-emphasize the identity of the poster, so that we can look at the question or comment in a more neutral light.  We don't want to give the impression that this is some sort of name-and-shame ritual.
 * I appreciate that you're a Wikipedia regular, but I'm not comfortably bending our rules on that basis. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and announce that I fully trust you not to take anything we tell you as medical advice.  The problem is that we can't offer diagnoses to some editors and not others, and we shouldn't give the impression that it's sometimes okay for us to give medical advice.  While I know that you know better, the 'fly-by-night n00b posters' are going to find it confusing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Richardrj when he says it was not a request for medical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Duncan. Ten, you're not addressing my central point, which is that my question did not constitute a request for medical advice.  What if I had put "Is it possible for a subway carriage to malfunction such that riders experience coughing and difficulty in breathing?"  Would that have been a request for medical advice, in your view? --Richardrj talkemail 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's always a twitchy sort of question, isn't it? If your first question on the topic had been that one, we probably wouldn't be here &mdash; though some sort of framing story ("I'm writing a medical mystery drama"; "I've heard that the London Underground has some haunted carriages"; etc.) would help to avoid raising suspicion.  If you were to do it now, of course, it would be obvious that you were still seeking the same medical advice, and simply demonstrating that as a Wikipedia regular you knew how to game our policy.  I hope you don't choose that course, and I would discourage you from trying to take advantage of the good faith of other Deskers by doing something deceptive like that.  I know it would put me (and anyone else who notes this thread) in a bit of an ethical bind &mdash; should we ignore the new post because it obeys the letter of the policy, or should we stick up for the principle and spend the rest of the day getting yelled at on this page? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He can't be "still seeking the same medical advice" when he's already said he isn't seeking medical advice (unless you want to call him a liar). DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, he would still seeking the same information: a diagnosis based on his described symptoms. Wrapping that request in a different package wouldn't change that, since we already know – based on his own previous question – that he would be describing his own symptoms.  You can't put that particular toothpaste back in the tube.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Ten, I wouldn't dream of putting you in an ethical dilemma caused by your own overzealous interpretation of our guidelines (guidelines which I support 100%, by the way, and I have removed questions on this basis myself in the past). (Apart from anything else, I've got a couple of good answers now.) But your position is simply untenable, as is amply illustrated by your own admission that my rephrasing of the question would have been acceptable, and also by my suspicion that an alternative rephrasing along the lines of "I observed such-and-such behaviour among a number of riders on the subway; could this have been caused by mechanical malfunction?", even closer to my original, would also have passed muster. Finally, you still haven't engaged with my counterargument (not merely an assertion) that this was not a request for medical advice.  --Richardrj talkemail 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I see the inconsistency in my position &mdash; we've long held that questions on medical topics are acceptable ("What are the common causes of shortness of breath?") whereas questions seeking diagnosis are not ("I have shortness of breath; what's likely to be causing it?"). The guideline – and I – both recognize that distinction.  I'm also aware that it can be a fine line sometimes.
 * In your particular case, your question tripped several flags that are in the guideline.
 * We can, of course, answer general factual questions about medicine and medical conditions, taking special care to base our answers on reliable sources, but these facts must not be construed to apply to any particular individual for purposes of diagnosis or treatment....
 * Any posted comment containing a diagnosis...in response to symptoms presented in a question, is considered inappropriate for the reference desk, as are questions that seem to be implicitly or explicitly requesting such advice....
 * A diagnosis is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its symptoms.... An example of a diagnosis: X says "I'm having memory problems". Y responds "you might have Alzheimer's disease"....
 * The difference between what is and what is not acceptable has to do with both the answer and the question. If a complete answer to the question may be given without interpretation of the condition of any actual person, it is acceptable to answer the question. If an interpretation of an actual person's condition is necessary for a complete answer, the question is asking for some form of diagnosis or treatment advice that is not allowed....
 * Verify that the question asks for medical advice as detailed above. Typically a poster will ask about one or more symptoms, and solicit an opinion about diagnosis (What is this?).... The symptoms will be those of the poster, or ascribed to a friend or relative....
 * In this case, a specific individual – you – identified yourself as having had specific, transient symptoms ('[sudden]...tightening in [his] throat', 'began to cough', 'harder to breathe than normal') under specific conditions, and sought explanations for his (temporary) condition. A complete answer to your question would require us to guess what substance (if any) you were exposed to, and confirm that your symptoms were potentially the result of that exposure.  ("Sounds like exposure to tubeworm spores; they're active in the underground in late winter and early spring.")  For clarity, could you restate your counterargument?  I'm not seeing a direct rebuttal of the assertion that you're presenting us with symptoms and asking for an underlying cause (diagnosis).  Feel free to unindent a bit, too &mdash; we're getting awfully deep in the colons here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I believe Richardrj had no intention of asking a question that was over the bounds of any Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that he asked his question in good faith. Nevertheless, the medical advice guideline is fairly explicit on this point.  He described a number of his own symptoms ('[sudden]...tightening in [his] throat', 'began to cough', 'harder to breathe than normal') and asked us to explain what might have caused them.  A wide range of conditions and triggers come to mind, none of which we can or should offer as a diagnosis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Boy, this one is right up against the line. The deciding factor is Richardrj's lungs. I can't think of how to answer without involving the lungs of the real, living person who asked the question and asking follow-up questions that are best asked while looking though one of those round mirrors with the hole in the middle you wear on a band around your head within sight of a framed diploma and license. If it matters, I think "the OP" can walk away from this head held high. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The asks for a diagnosis based on symptoms.  As far as I know, those symptoms are symptoms of many lethal conditions.  The odds of an RD regular's family suing the WMF after his death is small, and the odds of the OP actually making any decisions based on the responses are also slim, so perhaps most people don't consider it serious.   However, any response that might be understood as telling him not to see a doctor after experiencing difficulty breathing strikes me as unethical and dangerous.  JackSchmidt (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was clear from the question that the symptoms subsided as soon as he left the carriage and that they were experienced by multiple people. That makes it a question about what was going on in that carriage, not a request for a diagnosis or suggested treatment of a medical problem. You don't need medical advice after the event. Questions should only be removed if they are obviously requests for medical advice, standard practice in ambiguous cases (which this is, at worst) is to leave the question there and put a warning reminding answers to be careful what they say. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tango, that's exactly what I would have said in response to Ten's call for clarification above. --Richardrj talkemail 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your symptoms may have been the result of an underlying condition; there may also have been longer-lasting effects which are not readily apparent to you now. With that I'm getting dangerously close to medical advice.  I'm rather hamstrung by ethical and policy considerations; I can't comfortably explain to you why an explanation of your symptoms would constitute medical advice without actually giving you the advice.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we're undesirably close to medical advice anytime the question is of the form "I have/had these symptoms- what could be the cause?". I don't think anyone did anything wrong here. OK, so the question wasn't meant as a request for medical advice, but removing it was still the most prudent thing to do in my view. Instead of arguing endlessly about it here, why not just quickly rephrase the question and move on? Friday (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to do that, (a) because I've already gotten a couple of good answers; and (b) because Ten has already said above that he would even consider deleting a rephrased question, secure as he is in the knowledge that I would be sneakily requesting medical advice by the back door, so to speak. --Richardrj talkemail 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I call for an immediate preemptive block! We cannot tolerate Richardrj hypothetically violating Reference Desk guidelines!  :-)   –   7 4   22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took Richardrj to be an observer of an event that made me really curious about the smell or gas in question which was imho handled perfectly by CookatooErgoZoom and effectively answered the question. Did no-one else relate to that? (apols if I overlooked anyone) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tally

 * No - 74.137.108.115
 * No - StuRat
 * Yes - A Quest For Knowledge
 * Yes - hydnjo
 * No - Julia Rossi
 * Yes - Malcolm XIV
 * Yes - Sean
 * Meh - Mattopaedia
 * Yes - Nil Einne
 * Yes - SteveBaker
 * Yes - Franamax
 * Yes - Lanfear's Bane
 * Yes - Milkbreath
 * Yes - 10draftsdeep
 * No  - Steve Summit
 * Yes - JackSchmidt
 * Yes - Rockpocket
 * Yes - Scray
 * Yes - Captain Disdain
 * Yes - Axl
 * (as of this date/time by hydnjo (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this question a request for medical advice?


 * No –  7 4   15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't decided by a vote, and there's an ongoing active discussion. Please don't try to cut things off like that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the "ongoing active discussion" I see 4 users who apparently disagree with your actions and you. You seem to take it upon yourself to be the guardian of all things Reference Desk, and I object. If this thread turns out like nearly every other removal, it will drag on for days until everyone simply gives up and moves on. I'm merely requesting an opinion poll on a simple question. subsection renamed –  7 4   16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also possible that an unknown number of editors completely agree with TOAT but can't be bothered to rehash the same arguments time after time when the outcome is generally certain. Now of course, the thoughts of silent actors generally shouldn't influence decisions, except that we know they tend to come out of the woodworks when edit wars break out over the stuff. It should be noted that the discussions to create the medical guidelines, and the later discussions to actually enforce it involved more than four editors, as I recall. I can't knock someone for repeatedly upholding a guideline (and I'm sorry, but "I have X symptoms, what caused them" is the stereotypical request for medical advice, even if nothing of the kind was intended) even when a few editors disagree. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your first statement. That's exactly why I called for a poll. If the "silent majority" supports this removal, this would have been an *excellent* place to display their support without getting into an interminable argument&mdash;that is, it would have been if it hadn't been contested as an "unconstructive" poll and derailed into the argument proper. –  7 4   20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fine to call for straw poll here. Consensus is often determined by a vote or, if you prefer, a "!vote", such as on the AfD pages.  You just don't want a straw poll because it will make it absolutely obvious that you used poor judgement in unilaterally deleting a Q where there is no consensus to do so, when it should have been discussed first.  And having a straw poll doesn't cut off discussion, either.  If anything, it encourages discussion. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it constructive discussion? We've now had the apparently-mandatory attacks on my character from you and DuncanHill, and we've now got eight editors agreeing that the question was a request for medical advice (including me) and four disagreeing (including the OP).  Several editors have indicated frustration regarding the gratuitiously mean-spirited approach that you and Duncan have taken.
 * I didn't want to delay a poll to conceal my 'poor judgement'; I wanted to delay a poll because I was hoping to avoid the unecessarily combative and polarizing discussion that comes from trying to divide editors into camps, I didn't want to have editors trying to judge the dispute before there was an opportunity to everyone to have their say, or to present and develop their arguments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus on matters like this is determined solely by TOAT. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just trolling. Please keep such nonsense off the talk page.  Friday (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't even bother to read the comments above because I seriously doubt there is anything different from all the debates that have gone before it. In order to provide a complete answer to this question, you must diagnose why this particular person would have had the reaction.  You can provider partial answers without any diagnosis, but not a complete answer.  If you cannot provider a complete answer without diagnosis, it is a request for medical advice.  Any debate that is not limited to "Can we answer this completely without medical advice?" is a useless waste of time. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to quote here from the Medical Advice guidelines:
 * "All reference desk editors are volunteer contributors who are subject to existing Wikipedia guidelines, which specifically state that Wikipedia is not to be used or relied upon for professional advice (see Wikipedia:disclaimer). Even if such advice were permitted by Wikipedia, it is not possible to conduct examinations of users with medical problems anonymously over the internet. The Reference Desk is not an advice page, and moreover there is the real possibility of doing harm to readers by advising them on medical issues—either because the advice is dangerous or because it discourages them from seeing a medical professional. Therefore medical advice must not be given by question-answerers, and should not be requested." (emphasis added)
 * I believe that what is key here is the idea that there is the possibility of doing harm. Given that possibility, where there is any doubt about whether or not a question is a request for medical advice, it should be removed. We should err on the side of caution. Put another way, what is the potential harm associated with not removing a request for medical advice, as opposed to the risks of removing something which is not actually a request for medical advice?
 * If we don't remove a real request, then the poster may receive incorrect or dangerous advice which could lead directly to physical harm.
 * If we remove something which isn't actually a request, then the poster doesn't get an answer, and other posters are denied the opportunity to provide an answer.
 * I think on balance the harm associated with non-removal of a real medical advice question outweighs that associated with the removal of a non-medical advice question. Why are we tying ourselves in knots trying to prevent someone from not getting a non-medical advice question answered by a bunch of strangers on the Internet, instead of being concerned about preventing someone from getting a medical advice question answered by a bunch of strangers on the Internet? - EronTalk 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not a request for medical advice. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It would appear that a call for a "straw poll" has resulted only in a continuation of the discussion from the previous section albeit with a different header which can be misleading. Since I'm already here I'll comment with a response to Richardrj:


 * Nah, I wouldn't worry about it. Oh, you didn't say, did you or any of the other passengers have any continuing symptoms er.. never-mind, it was probably nothing anyway. I wouldn't bother reporting it because they'll probably say that "it was just one of those things". That way if no one reports it well, it never happened no matter how many people don't report it. Also, I wouldn't report the incident to my doctor because he'll probably say the same thing - don't worry about it - then send you a bill for information that you're getting for free here. Please delete after reading this before someone gets well you know upset that I've tried to help you out ya know! -hydnjo talk 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not a medi-request, more like a situational question. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say Yes, but given that this is increasingly the StuRat homepage, where any deletion (or suggestion of deletion) is attacked by precisely two editors until the opposition gets bored and gives up, I don't really know why I'm bothering to offer an opinion. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't really understand or agree with the no-medical-questions policy, but given that I don't care enough to lobby against it, I have to concede that "my throat seized up; care to conjecture why?" does indeed qualify.  --Sean 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. Its possible to interpret Richard's question as a request for advice.  Its also possible to interpret this as "I wonder why this happened?  What sort of stuff can make that happen?" - which is not a request for advice, but information.  Scroll back up.  Look at the length of this thread.  It is ridiculous.  People are taking things personally and getting all offended, and posting some (hopefully poorly thought through) inflammatory comments.  This, people, is what I really want to see becoming a thing of the past at the refdesk.  It doesn't matter how Richard, or anyone else for that matter, frames a question. What matters is how we answer it! (At this point I'm visualising an evangelical James Brown shouting Do you see the light?!)  TOAT has already pointed out that an OP's intent may differ from the apparent intent of their question.  So have I.  We can't be responsible for people's intentions, or how they phrase their questions.  I think removing questions simply the wrong way to go because we can never be sure of the intent behind a question, and this thread really highlights that.  The only thing we can take responsibility for are the answers we, collectively, provide - and that's where we need to focus our attention.  Look at the Shrooms question.  Here I plonked in my bloody huge banner (that may need some further work) and removed what I believed to be an inappropriate response.  Other useful links were provided by other refdeskers and the OP wrote back saying thanks for the help. Done, finished, easy.  I need a coffee!   Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well put. I think history has proven we cannot accurately judge the intent of the OP; attempts to do so merely result in long, acrimonious "discussions" like this one. I, for one, am ready for a change. –  7 4   03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who oppose the removal of a question on the grounds that the OP might not have intended it to be a request for medical advice are also trying to judge the intent of the OP. We can't judge the intent, but we can judge the question as it is put to us - and on those grounds, questions that look like requests for medical advice, and which will get responses that look like medical advice, should be removed. No judgement of intent is required.
 * The problem with leaving the question and worrying about the answers is, who will police the answers? I know that I won't try to provide medical advice, and I am sure none of us participating in this discussion would, but what about others? If we remove the question, there is one deletion required. Who knows how many responses will have to be deleted - as medical advice - if we leave the questions? And then of course, each removed response will get its own topic on this page, with various editors criticizing the removal and suggesting that the intent of the answer wasn't really to provide medical advice...
 * By the way, I won't be taking part in the straw poll as I don't think it is appropriate to submit another editor's judgement to a vote. I will say that I agree with that judgement in this case. - EronTalk 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol do you really think simply removing responses is going to help? I can imagine it will lead to a lot more drama where every single removed reponse is debated non stop. More significantly perhaps, it doesn't help when the OP is really seeking medical advice. Are you telling me that when the OP says "I have blood in my urine but I'm too lazy to see a doctor, where can I get advice on my condition" it's fine if we just direct them to Hematuria and remove 18 hours later when someone notices the response telling them not to worry about it? Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just look at all the scathing responses to the "Shrooms" removal above; it makes this thread look like a tea party. Your comment below (and others like yours) is *exactly* why our current process fails&mdash;constant debates with the same tired arguments and no meaningful conclusions breed apathy. Will a new system work? I don't know, but if there's a chance I think we should try it. Perhaps we could slap some sunset clauses on it and run an experiment for a day or a week. If it fails we're no worse off then we are now. –  7 4   05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason there was no fuss in response to the Shrooms removal is because it was an IP's answer that was removed. Try the same tactic with an answer made by few well known Ref Desk regulars and we'll see a very different outcome! That said, Mattopaedia has made a good case to at least give his proposal a try. I don't object to that. Rockpock  e  t  20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes (I've kind of given up discussing medical advice questions but since it sounds like people are going to use the poll to push their view I felt I needed to express my view) Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - I don't see why there should be any debate here. Per the very first sentence of our guideline: "The Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request...any kind of medical diagnosis...".  Our OP said: "I was suddenly aware of a tightening in my throat. I don't recall there being much of a smell, but I began to cough and it was certainly harder to breathe than normal." - this is without doubt a description of a set of symptoms: Coughing, Constriction of throat, Difficulty in breathing...and not caused by some strongly pungent odor.  This could very easily relate to some kind of medical condition - it fits the symptoms of at least two conditions I could think of.  Then we get: "What could my reaction have been caused by?" - which is clearly asking for a diagnosis of that condition.  How could this POSSIBLY be anything other than a request for a medical diagnosis - which we're simply not allowed to give.  QED SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy... If you answered it and you don't want to admit you were wrong, you can rationalize about the intent, what you can answer, similar questions in the past, how it could be phrased differently... and so on. It is amazing how easy it is to twist one thing into another once you start rationalizing.  Soon, you can be good enough to start arguing about what the definition of "is" is. (This is why I try to keep it simple now.  There is only one rule: Can it be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment advice?  No?  Then it is a request for medical advice.) --  k a i n a w &trade; 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - close enough, it dealt with symptoms and diagnosis. If the same symptoms recurred, the OP could make assumptions based on "advice" given here by enthusiastic amateurs determined to have something to say on every question. Those assumptions could prove fatal. Thus, medical advice. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Description of symptoms followed by a request for advice.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - I guess we're "voting" after all. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a straw poll - I guess the intent is to determine if a new consensus has emerged. Clearly it has not. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes -with slight reservation. I spent so much time reading and contemplating the question that I felt obligated to proceed and make a choice, but I still see both sides of this situation. I maintain that a simple modification of the question would have significantly altered the outcome.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The tightening-of-the-throat-in-the-subway question did not strike me as asking for medical advice.  It is, to be sure, the type of question that can generate, in the liability paranoia arena, the same sorts of concerns as are induced by medical advice questions.  Are those liability paranoia concerns overblown here?  I have my opinion, but since that's not the question here I'll demur. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To Steve and whoever else is watching this. I don't think that the main concern behind this discussion has to do with liability, our disclaimer properly deals with a "random-person-on-the-internet" offering medical advice. Our (well some of us') concerns have more to do with offering advice (medical in this discussion) although sometimes incomplete or incorrect but well meaning might be construed as authoritative. It sometimes is but sometimes isn't and so therefor it could do harm - who is to arbitrate? There is no medical review board here so some of us think the safest path is to avoid any response to medical requests for advice by removing the request. Others argue that the question should remain in place but with warnings regarding the quality of the responses (even providing a glaring WARNING ) to be wary of the advice provided herein. As you know, some folks will see what they want to no matter the warning so, what are we to do with the next "painless suicide" question that comes along, parse the intent? hydnjo talk 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The deal is VERY simple. We have a guideline.  In Wikipedia-land, to change a guideline requires a consensus to change it.  A consensus means "near unanimity".  There is nothing remotely close to a majority who wish to change it - let alone a consensus.  There is zero point in debating it because nobody appears to be sitting on the fence ready to be convinced.  There are firmly held views on both sides.  So the rule stands. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously (only voting because I can already see people attempting to use the poll the justify their favored position). Rockpock  e  t  02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - Answers could be expected to help the OP decide whether to seek medical attention. We must avoid influencing that decision.  --Scray (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. And no. But mostly yes; the question included a description of a physical symptom the poster clearly experienced and was about what caused it. (Why no? Because he wasn't really asking for medical advice, he was wondering what could cause symptoms like that in him and other passengers. I don't think it's quite the same thing, and in a perfect world, we'd distinguish between the two. But that ain't where we are.) I'm not a big fan of the "no medical advice" thing when taken to a ridiculous extreme (typically seen when someone pounces on a medical question that's clearly not about medical advice), but I don't think we should diagnose anyone over the internet. (That said, I do think there's a whiff of hypocrisy in the air when answering a direct question is very bad but offering an encyclopedia article about the very same topic is perfectly all right. What, it's okay if someone stumbles on a certain piece of information and does something very stupid with it without someone specifically directing them there? I kinda fail to see the moral there.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

archive contents pages broken links
See this thread over at the Village Pump. I'm sure many of you have noticed the broken links sprinkled through e.g. Archives/Humanities/February 2009. As mentioned, I think the offending bug in the archiving bot is mostly fixed now, and invite y'all to let me know if you notice any more of these glitches going forward. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the notice. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed (possible) request for medical advice ("osseous structures")
I removed a request for medical advice here:.

We cannot offer advice in interpreting the results of medical tests; the OP should be taking these questions up with her physician. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP wrote the following: "Can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean". It seems to me that she was looking for information, not advice. Isn't that, you know, what we do? – ClockworkSoul 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The doctor provided the diagnosis, the OP just asked us to explain what the terms mean, which is exactly what an encyclopedia, online or otherwise, should do. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP also wrote "I blanked out at the doctors and did not understand the bone scan results." She wanted information about her own medical test results. She needs to get that from her doctor, not from us. Her doctor knows her case and can advise her about what those things mean in the context of her medical situation. We cannot. We don't even know why she had a bone scan done in the first place. - EronTalk 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is here: Reference_desk/Science. StuRat (talk)


 * The terms the OP provided are not accurate medical terms. "Osseous stucurs" gets 0 google hits. I could assume that her doctor might have said "osseous structures" (248,000 hits) but now I am playing doctor and guessing at things. Then I google "osteo blasic lesions"; that's another 0 hits, but it suggests I look at "osteoblastic lesions". Now I'm not just playing doctor, I'm playing oncologist. This is not a question any of us should go anywhere near. The OP did not even clearly hear what her doctor said; she needs to go back and get a proper explanation. Any other advice would be irresponsible. - EronTalk 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. Very much. She is asking us for a definition, and we can give that to her and decline to cross the line to medical advice. It will allow her to ask more informed questions when she does discuss the issue further with her physician. – ClockworkSoul 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Eron apparently holds it against the OP that they don't know how to spell medical terms. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to be nice. However, that the OP recalled the terms well enough to try to spell them out suggests that she heard them just fine. It's quite clear what she was trying to spell. – ClockworkSoul 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So an M.D. is now required to copy edit? I believe we could provide links without providing advice, but the last medremoval "discussion" is barely more than a day old and I've no interest in reviewing all of those arguments. –  7 4   05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, Is SB the original poster? -Hydnjo (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No: the original post is here. – ClockworkSoul 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ten didn't provide a link to this discussion from the Q. I've now added the link. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks StuRat ClockworkSoul, I didn't understand why people were referring to SB as she unless I missed out on a previous "outing" ;-)  -Hydnjo (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean to thank ClockworkSoul ? They are the one who answered you.  (I was planning to, but they beat me to it.) StuRat (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes sorry, fixed attribution - Hydnjo (talk)


 * S'all good. I don't work for credit, anyway. ;) – ClockworkSoul 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to ignore these interminable talk page discussions because they wind me up. And I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding the ethics of medical advice on these pages (although I will note that we're quite happy to discuss financial matters, for example, and some people give exceedingly firm religious advice, which is extremely contentious) but surely we don't have to jump on everyone who asks for information?  After all, WP quite openly has pages on Positron emission tomography, osteoblasts, Osseous tissue and even, most controversially, defines osseous. OK, so we can't and shouldn't interpret someone's medical results, but I think it's not asking too much for us to define an unfamiliar word or two without drawing any conclusions. Gwinva (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer given is problematic for (at least) the following reasons.
 * It contains at least one apparent factual error (later pointed out by another editor) &mdash; 'cancerous' lesions are by definition 'malignant'; they cannot be classified as 'benign'.
 * It contains statements of fact that are not directly supported by reference to articles or outside reliable sources: "...certain kinds of cancer (especially breast, lung, prostate, thyroid and kidney)".
 * It offers an interpretation – granted, not a particularly helpful one – of the poster's medical results: "soft tissue uptake of the tracer can mean anything, or nothing at all". This sort of diagnosis directly contravenes the guideline on medical advice.
 * I think that in this case the responder waded in with the best of intentions, but did not generate the best result. While Eventualism is a fine philosophy for Wikipedia articles, it's not a suitable approach to helping people interpret their medical test results.
 * From a policy standpoint, the decision to reinstate the question and offer a response was out of line. Less than two hours had elapsed since the removal, and there were clear objections raised on this talk page.  No consensus had emerged that the removal was inappropriate, and we should err on the side of caution.  On the last question seeking medical advice (responsible for another teapot tempest above) a small group of editors were declaring a consensus against the removal a few hours in, where a sizeable majority now support the initial assessment of the question.
 * At this point, we don't know if the original poster is even still reading responses. Did she just take the first answer and run?  In the absolute best of faith, we've given her a mix of useful information, speculation, interpretation, and outright error.  We meant well, but we fell short.  That is why we have the guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The OP isn't asking for an interpretation of her test results. She just wants definitions of some of the terms in the interpretation. I think we can answer this without reference to her medical condition. So the question is fine. The guidelines provide clear guidance on dealing with inappropriate answers. If you don't like the answer, why would you delete the question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is asking for definitions—unfortunately for the OP, she provided her reason for asking—so it can be fully answered without providing any advice. I agree with the reinstatement. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support reinstatement. Milkbreath had performed a careless "throw the baby out with the bathwater" deletion of everything, including the link to the discussion here, so I reverted it. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this question a fair bit, and reading the comments here. Nothing I've seen has persuaded me that this can be answered without violating the guidelines on medical advice. Several editors are of the opinion that the OP is only asking for definitions of a few medical terms. I think this ignores the context. Here is the original question in its entirety:
 * I blanked out at the doctors and did not understand the bone scan results. Can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean. The are in my spine. I already had MRI and this was the result of bone scan. results said PET tomogram would be useful. 


 * Very confused


 * Reading only the second sentence makes this look like a request for definitions of three medical terms. But that ignores the rest of what the OP said: she received the results of a bone scan; she did not understand what her doctor told her; and these three things she is asking about are things she has - things that are affecting her and her health directly. I don't think she is just asking what the definition of "osteo blasic lesions" is. She wants to know what it means to have them in her spine. She is confused about what she has been told. She needs information about diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options.


 * Context is crucial in answering questions. We routinely ask OPs to provide more context - "What country are you in?" "When did you see that movie?" "What OS are you using?" So why on Earth would we opt to completely ignore the context here, especially when that context makes it clear that we are dealing with a medical question?


 * Calling this a simple request for definitions would be like responding to "I have a knife sticking out of my chest. What are some ways to stop bleeding?" with a link to Band-aid. - EronTalk 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it would be like answering "I was recently stabbed and the doctor said the knife just missed the interior venkava, what's that ?", with a link to inferior vena cava. In both cases, the Q can be fully answered without any need to give medical advice, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Digression to real life
How would a real-life reference desk respond to this (and any other medremoval) question? Having never actually seen a reference desk, let alone asked a medical-related question, I'm curious if they have policies similar to ours. (Anecdotal evidence is acceptable.) –  7 4   05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They would be referred to a medical text, such as Gray's Anatomy, and, if the librarian had time, they might find the appropriate pages for the terms in question. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have all of this information here. No need to refer them to an opaque clinical textbook of mostly non-pathologic anatomy. I'm restoring the question on the grounds that we don't have to give advice to respond (wasn't that suggested as a possible defining characteristic of a question to be removed for medical advice reasons?), and I'm responding to the query as we should: with wikilinks to wikiarticles. – ClockworkSoul 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit. I've reinstated the query, and replied appropriately. – ClockworkSoul 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think you did a fine job of providing information without giving medical advice. I cringe, however, because I doubt your answer will survive the night. –  7 4   06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 74! Yes, the whole point of the RD is to provide information (without giving medical advice), but I'm afraid that something of a "medical advice" witch hunt may be brewing. It seems like common sense that simply asking whether a post can be responded to without medical advice should be the litmus test for defining medical advice queries. Removing posts should be a last resort (even if we do have a pretty new template). – ClockworkSoul 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The pretty new template is actually proposed to be used *instead of* removal for all but the most egregious medical-advice questions. –  7 4   07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Librarians and libraries take this sort of thing very seriously, and "proceed with caution" is a significant guideline. These links show some of what the Maine State Library tells its librarians about medical advice: here, here, and here. Some quotes:
 * "While all patron questions are important, health related questions can have life or death consequences. And even when the stakes aren't quite that high, helping patrons find information to make sound decisions on health issues can be intimidating."
 * "The first and foremost guideline is to inform patrons that you cannot give medical advice. Beyond that, tap into your best reference desk training to conduct a sensitive interview with the patron, locate multiple sources, and identify the authority and credentials of each source--all this without analyzing, interpreting, or advocating for any of the content"
 * "Helping library patrons find answers to legal and medical questions can pose challenges beyond just finding answers. Library staff have to balance helping patrons with being careful not to give legal or medical advice. This makes it especially important to be prepared for these types of questions and to provide both staff and patrons with training and tools to help them find, evaluate, and use legal and medical information

It's clear from reviewing these guidelines from a real library staffed with professional reference desk staff that answering medical questions isn't simply a matter of handing over a medical text and maybe - if there's time - helping to look up terms. Librarians are trained in responding to these types of questions, and they still proceed very carefully. Hands up, everyone here who has the "training and tools to help them find, evaluate, and use legal and medical information?" - EronTalk 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a few people at the Ref Desk have such training. However, even when it is actually medical advice the patron is seeking, they advise to "locate multiple sources, and identify the authority and credentials of each source--all this without analyzing, interpreting, or advocating for any of the content".  When it's not medical advice they are seeking, but they merely want definitions of medical terms, as in this case, none of this caution is necessary. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh - puh-lease - you know better than that StuRat - I know you do. Please let's not rehash all of these old debates.  All you know is that some people here CLAIM to have such training - neither you nor I have any idea whether they are what they claim - or whether they are annoying little school kids who want to sound 'big' by acting professional - or whether they are crazed - but clever - psychopaths with a desire to issue subtly bad medical advice in the hope of doing whatever mischief they get their kicks from...or anything in between.  Doubtless some people here do know their stuff - but equally doubtless, others don't.  Our OP's (in particular) have no way to know who is genuine and who is not...and neither do we.  Anyone who has hung out on Wikipedia for long enough knows full well that there are an enormous number of people on this site who are not what they claim.  This is an anonymous site (yes, even if you have an account).   We can't know whether the people answering are what they say they are or not.  Hence we cannot assume that people here have any appropriate training whatever.


 * Dude...give it up - we have a solid guideline - you know damned well that Wikipedia rules require you to get a clear consensus to overturn it. You're not going to get a clear consensus because you're in the minority and there are no people left who have not already decided their position in the face of every argument you've put forward over the past year or so. Every time you bring it up - resolve to prevent you changing the way we work here hardens - people are not being convinced by your point of view here.  Consensus means that to affect change you have to have near unanimous support for your position - and you're not even close to that.  This question is RESOLVED.  Please - just find another subject to rant about - this is getting seriously tedious.


 * You may be right that there may be a small overreaction to medical-ish questions right now - but do you REALLY not understand why that is? Do I have to spell it out for you?  Well, perhaps I do - so let me tell you, as honsetly as I can:  There is a perception that you (and one or two others) are trying to whittle away at the "No Medical Advice" rule bit by bit - by pushing it into a corner, framing precise 'magic formula' forms of words that would always get around the rules...that kind of tactic.  Hence people react by overstepping the other way.  The present (slight) overreaction is ENTIRELY 100% your fault.  If you would PLEASE just give this up and STFU about medical questions, then I absolutely guarantee that the overreactions were seeing from time to time will go back to normality.  But so long as you keep up with these entirely non-subtle insidious tactics - any hope of a return to normality is impossible because those involved know only too well that when one side compromises and the other hasn't given up the struggle - then the whittling away starts all over again from the new compromise position...and ground is given unnecessarily.   I'm really getting to old to fall for these kinds of tricks.


 * Trust me on this one. Just stop posting on this topic and things will get back to normal.  Keep this crap going and the position will harden and harden and you'll just get more and more frustrated.  Sooner or later (as these things invariably do on Wikipedia) you'll make a booboo - fall foul of some Wikipedia principle and the blocking and grief will begin.  So remove the spiderman costume - get off the notable german listed building and let's get back to answering some of the great questions out there.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm one of the "one or two others" you are indicting, but quite frankly I find your rant patently offensive. –   7 4   01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concise, point by point rebuttal of my arguments. SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not be engaged in mudslinging. If you'd like me to take your complaint seriously, try rewriting it in a neutral and npa manner. –  7 4   01:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We (the collective majority here) have been doing that continually for at least a year now. The question is answered.  The debate is truly over.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "STFU about medical questions" is hardly the type of statement that invites a discussion. And your "Sooner or later (as these things invariably do on Wikipedia) you'll make a booboo - fall foul of some Wikipedia principle and the blocking and grief will begin" line seems to be saying that Admins on the side of unilateral deletion are just waiting to block me on some pretense.  I certainly hope they aren't as petty as you seem to think.  You also seem to acknowledge that there have been overzealous deletions recently, yet blame these actions on me, as opposed to those people actually doing the deletions.  Don't you think they have any responsibility for their own actions ? StuRat (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm not inviting a discussion - we've had that - over and over and over for the past year or more - what I'm inviting here is that you drop it because it's changed from a reasonable discussion over some area of doubt - to a small minority who have ZERO chance of changing the guideline who simply will not give up on a totally lost cause. It's tedious and unnecessarily contentious that you and a couple of others keep banging on about it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my Q. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 74: If you've only been editing since this past January as your edit history suggests then no, I don't think that SB is meaning to include you with his "one or two others" comment. -Hydnjo (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Systemic Beta Hemolysis Infection
I just wanted to call attention to this question so that the next time somebody says we remove anything remotely medical, well, you get the idea. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * May we have a link ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the link. (However, the way you added it by changing your original post  makes it look like I was nuts to ask you to add a link.) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. Right. Sorry, didn't think of that. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have been attempting to point out each time (and I'm sure I haven't made it clear enough)... This is easy. That question may be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment suggestions.  Therefore, it is not a request for medical advice and should not be removed.  I really wish the entire policy on this was reduced to one question: Can the question be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment advice? --  k a i n a w &trade; 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing this is a medical advice question. Rather Milkbreath was simply using this as an example to show that not all questions related medicine are removed Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant to point out that the example isn't necessary. The rule is very simple, but the arguments rationalize it into a complex mix of opinion and speculation. --  k a i n a w &trade; 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, what seems simple to one person may be different, or complex, to another. Without Total Enlightenment, it's hard to know who is right.  If you didn't want to discuss this, you could have just left it alone.  --Scray (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Kainaw's criterion (how cool does that sound?) gives us a structured and nearly-objective test to determine if a question seeks medical advice. If we used this, each thread here would merely discuss whether a question can be fully answered without providing diagnoses/prognoses/treatment suggestions (or without reference to the questioner's medical condition). If the question can't, it should be removed. This is simpler than arbitrarily debating whether an OP wants advice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kainaw's criterion? Perhaps I should make a page on that. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very cool. "Without Total Enlightenment" is begging for an essay as well (WP:WTE) :) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)