Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 83

Argument collapsed
Argument between User:Baseball Bugs and User:Viennese Waltz on An Exultation of Larks regarding helpfulness of answers collapsed as being unhelpful to OP. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should strike all of VW's comments there, as they were of no value to the OP whatsoever, and were strictly disruptive, personal attacks against Cuddly and me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or VW should those comments himself, per his own advice on Cuddlyable3's talk page. WikiDao    &#9775;  15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. C3's and BB's posts, while ostensibly answering the OP's question, were really of no help at all.  Striking them through would therefore appear to be an appropriate course of action for those editors to take (not as good as not making them in the first place, though).  My posts were aimed at pointing out to those editors why they should not have made their posts.  Arguably I should have made those comments on their talk pages, and will do so in future.  But striking them through is not really appropriate.  --Viennese Waltz 15:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically, VW is criticizing answers that were "of no help at all" (in his opinion; the OP has not commented), while himself providing nothing resembling any help at all to the OP... other than showing the OP how to treat other editors like jerks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah... the reason I haven't said anything about the OP's question is that I don't know the answer to it. Nor do you, of course, but that hasn't stopped you from posting on the thread. --Viennese Waltz 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Arguably" indeed. VW, if you want to complain about other another editor's behaviour on the RDs, the appropriate place to do it is (a) at their talk page or (b) here at WT:RD if you want a wider audience. It is never appropriate to make such a complaint on the RDs themselves. All three of you should keep your personal disputes off the RDs, please. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my early response to "An Exultation of Larks" following comments by Viennese Waltz at the RD/M desk. IMO those comments could only lead to an OT discussion unsuitable to hold under the heading of the OP's question, both because of the unhelpful nature of the comments and their discouraging effect on other potential contributors. I don't know what induces Viennese Waltz to second-guess the responses of others. I reply to Viennese Waltz's complaint that my answer was "of no help at all" thus: we cannot assume that every questioner has tried the Google search engine with a good formulation of their question. That is often the first step of a web-based research and its result is relevant. For the "Larks" question I was able to report that a search finds a large number of websites, among which the desired e-book would likely be found if it exists on the Internet. At that point I did not find the book (nor has anyone so far). I claim the answer had the values both of indicating an appropriate search method and of compacting the OP's wide-open question into a finite search space. That may have saved a little time for another researcher. I disagree that that is "of no help at all". We can show a method and the inconclusiveness of research even if we never find the desired e-book. The above and this are the only answers I give to this post on my page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First VW complains about a post, then he complains when you remove said post. Whatever you do, it's "wrong". Do you see a trend there? :) Also, as suggested below, it looked as if the OP might be trying to figure out a way to get a copyright-violating version, an approach which was already nixed here a few days ago. Had he not been so focused on nannying other users, he might have caught onto that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you should do is (1) reinstate your response, as there was nothing wrong with it; (2) consolidate all the information into one ref desk section instead of two as it is now; and (3) while you're doing that, drop all of VW's snippy comments and any responses to them. The IP posted a comment about it on Talk:Collective noun, which refers to the Language ref desk, so the stuff on the Miscellaneous ref desk could be moved and maybe a note left there, if you want to go to that effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Every single person Everyone except Nil Einne who responded in that thread wasted the person's time. Good job!
 * (At a glance, you might think that Richard Avery's comment was at least mildly useful, but I included it for its misleading second sentence. The book in question was published in 1968! Says so right here in James Lipton!) APL (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy is operating under a series of India-based IP's, and has now posted the same question at at least 3 different places. The most obvious thing to do is contact the publisher. But he won't contact the publisher, ostensibly on the presumption that they won't help him. But here's the thing: If the publisher doesn't make an electronic version, then any electronic version one might find on the internet must necessarily be a copyright violation. I'm assuming he's trying to get someone here to aid and abet such violation... just like someone was trying to do a week or so ago when the "torrent" question came up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the repeated "A Town Like Alice" or "torrent" subject, the guideline WP:AGF provides a last-resort defence of Plausible deniability in the remote event that 1) the OP asked for the word count of the book only as a cunning ruse to play upon the naïve gullibility of Wikipedians and 2) the OP's conscience is not appalled by the egregious sin of viewing on the Internet the 60-year old writing of a 50-year dead writer and 3) the OP incites a conspiracy of similar rascals who stop at nothing in their simultaneous expropriation of files (because one downloader at a time doesn't create a torrent!) and 4) someone who actually cares about criminalising this literary activity finds on a Wikipedia ref. desk the name of a link that is also just a click away in Google. Incidentally, it turns out that the link that Comet Tuttle deleted would not have helped the allegedly kleptomaniacal OP abscond with "Alice" because it lists not the book but the movie of the same name. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Stirring the Pot
At the risk of stirring up the already overboiling pot, may I make a suggestion?

Can we just answer the questions and all stop being such babies about it? This isn't even about trolls anymore, it's just about all of us ragging on each other and make this whole Project look like a bunch of children. Maybe we are, I don't know. But grow up everybody!

You may now begin attacking me personally and nitpicking my comments by saying that "some people aren't doing it right" rather than addressing the issue. Aaronite (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people aren't doing it right.
 * Anyway, most everything brought up on this talk page is done in an attempt to improve the reference desks for the majority. I don't see why you have an issue with that. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know. No problem there. The problem is the nitpicking and petty bickering.  The best solution?   Answer the questions rather than nitpick other editors on the mainspace of the desks.  And, as I always say, and more of us should be attempting (though most do).  Answer the question or don't bother posting! Many of the issues that arise here arise because of not following that simple guideline.  Aaronite (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, with a minor exception for the occasional humorous remark. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Have we had enough washlet spam yet?
Science desk, Entertainment desk, and Science desk again. Wasn't this irritating enough the last time? Opinions on killing all three "questions"? Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same poster. Shit happens. Let it lie.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The vacuum and futuristic questions are different enough that I'd let them be. As for the new washlet one, saw that while ago but somewhat agree with CA3. Annoying but probably not worth the effort to try and remove it. Most people didn't really bother to answer and they don't seem to be writing essays to convince us washlets are the best thing ever this time. Obviously the same poster altho they have a history of re-asking the same question and pretending it's not them. Perhaps they'll finally cause enough people to have 'grudges' IRL that they'll move to Korea, join the Korean air force and then stop bothering us. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

question removed
I axed this as a pure trolling question. check the picture he linked, and if you can justify it as anything else, feel free to restore. -- Ludwigs 2 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have left a message on the user's talk page, shouldn't you? The unexplained deletion of their question provokes paranoia if the user was not, in fact, trolling. The user is not a dedicated troll, at least, since an earlier question was an entirely innocent one about gas pipes. The question with the diagram seems a reasonable thing to wonder about, but liable to provoke debate. The OP seems to doubt the diagram, as well, and seems to be wondering whether there is in fact rationality in the process of acquiring faith. 81.131.53.219 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The diagram will offend some people, and amuse others, but in my view it is not unreasonable, and there is nothing to indicate the OP is a troll. It might be a dumb question but it isn't unreasonable.  I have restored the question to the Humanities Reference Desk and provided my response. See diff.  Dolphin  ( t ) 01:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the restoration. Nothing wrong with this diagram; the question – though a good faith request for opinion, speculation, and/or OR – still nevertheless falls well within the mandate of the Hum Desk.   WikiDao    &#9775;  02:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP's other questions appear to be legitimate. Ironically, the right-hand side of the drawing could just as easily apply to atheism as to religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How so? An innocent, naive child, given the best scientific explanations for everything, who nobody has told about the possible existence of such things as gods, could be reasonably expected to have no belief in a god or gods. That's not the same as inventing the idea of a god. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How so is because atheists ignore any apparent evidence that disagrees with their premise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's stop this right now. Bugs, this is the stuff that people keep trying to call you out on. You could have just left a comment about the topic at hand, but you just had to post the second sentence to make sure someone would reply to you and start a debate. Why is that always necessary? Matt Deres (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 81's comment above predicted debate. I gave you some debate, as an example. Try to think outside the box a little bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you're a sucker who takes the bait and starts an argument, even when people have already identified as trolling and deleted the original post? Nice.  APL (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the OP's other posts have seemed legitimate, so it's fine by me to put the question back and see if 81's prediction comes true. If you don't want debate on it, then don't put it back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what is being expressed here Bugs is that you gratuitously introduced the second ("ironically") sentence, which is wholly unrelated to whether or not the question should be there. All it does is invite spirited debate here on the talk page, about the outcome of a question. This thread is about removing or not removing the question, not about the answer to the question itself. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As might anyone passing by at the ref desk. The obvious purpose of that diagram is to slam religion. However, atheism shares a number of aspects with conventional religion. Try thinking outside the box. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments appear only to support the idea that your argument is valid. That's not relevant. We don't care. We just want you to stop annoying people. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing with my arguments. Otherwise... Some of you and your little clique annoy others also. They just have to put up with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Annoyance is a very subjective concept. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that the reason actions don't get taken against you is because you manage to twist the things people say into petty little arguments and make them forget the big picture. Very clever of you. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Petty little arguments" is a good way to put it. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Meanwhile, there is indeed a lively debate going on at the ref desk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Spiralling into childish nonsense. Closing? -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vimescarrot - my 23:46 comment was addressed to both of you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am easily suckered in by trolls, but for the record in this discussion which is closed for some reason, I would have supported restoration. I thought the question was reasonable because the complaint that the diagram makes about religious or spiritual people is pretty common.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The diagram on the right works for atheists also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Iodide Kelp Medical Question?
Isn't Reference_desk/Science essentially asking for medical advice? The question asker seems to want to self-medicate by eating enough kelp to have the same effect as potassium iodide pills. Admittedly potassium iodide is available over the counter, and kelp is widely available for purchase; so, the risk is probably low. However, it seems run counter to the spirit of the "no medical advice" prohibition for us to be advising anyone on whether they personally should be consuming iodide (or kelp). There is some (small) risk of adverse reaction with iodide, and while I don't know if eating lots kelp can ever make one sick, I would worry that at least some people could be allergic or otherwise sensitive. Dragons flight (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as it's a question that can be answered legally by somebody without a medical license, I don't see it as a problem.  They weren't actually asking if they should take it, but just wanted to know how to convert various units. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The risk is not necessarily low just because potassium iodide is available over the counter. Potassium iodide is itself not a neutral substance, and can cause its own complications with thyroids, which is one of the reasons people are being told not to take it unless they have been specifically instructed to. Tylenol is available over the counter, too, and approx. 50,000 people a year go to the hospital because of taking too much of it or mixing it with things they aren't supposed to. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We aren't attempting to avoid all questions with risk (if we were there are a lot more things we should not answer). Ariel. (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest risk is being yelled at by malcontents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing questions
User:Baseball Bugs seems to have assumed the mantle of sole arbiter of what is and What is not acceptable on the reference desks. He is repeatedly removing people's questions on a daily basis. Has he been given special authority to do this?--WittyClanker (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously not. Any editor who removes a question from the reference desks should flag it on this talk page to allow wider discussion and test consensus. It would be useful to see some evidence of the behaviour that you are complaining about. Do you have a few examples of instances where Bugs has removed a question recently without flagging it here ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that every removal requires mention here. In particular, questions that clearly come from known trolls or banned editors can be silently removed, in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Indeed. We have to be careful here. There's a class of removals that are contentious potentially contentious and clearly need to be announced and discussed here.  (A fine example is just above.)  Obvious trolling by known troublemakers, on the other hand, can be and is removed on sight without fanfare.  But then, single-use throwaway sockpuppets of the known troll tend show up here trying to incite further trouble when that happens, and in that case, we mustn't let the troll trick us into defending him and attacking the editor who was only valiantly cleaning up after him. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC) [tweaked 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)]


 * "Troll" is problematic because it doesn't have a clear definition. I think it is better to describe what the problem is using one's own language. One can add whether one considers what one is describing as "trolling". Labeling someone a troll tends to deprive them of a fair hearing once the label "sticks". Yes, we have info on what constitutes a Troll, Troll, but I think best practice should involve extensive description. Clearly I do not agree that the above question was "contentious". However I do agree that its removal had to be accompanied by simultaneous announcement here. That is because its offense involved subtlety. I should add, something I failed to add in the above discussion, that I think even if its offense was inadvertent, it still called for some sort of acknowledgement. Even mere insensitivity can be pointed out. We are a community of people and we should be able to articulate where we feel someone else has run afoul—whether we feel they did so intentionally or inadvertently. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, "trolling" is a behavior, while "troll" is an "add homonym" attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ WikiDao    &#9775;  18:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What Baseball Bugs just described as add homonym is covered by the existing article Ad hominem. Dolphin  ( t ) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the grounds that "add homonym" is a near-homonym of "ad hominem". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't the same. The Latin preposition ad means to or toward. Whereas the British understand Latin ab incunabulis in memoriam of Roman legions that visited their realm while America was still terra incognita, it looks like Baseball Bugs' homophonic substitution add is, while not necessarily synmptomatic of an attention disorder nor of spasmodic concatenation, is nevertheless an inaccurate approximation to the Dative case. Alas, nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit, not even Bugs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yipe! Egg on my face! Yes, homophones, not homonyms. :( Thank you for the correction. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky question. (Well, besides the part about Bugs being given special authority. He obviously hasn't.)
 * On the the one hand, it's important to the stability of Wikipedia in general that vandalism is easy to remove. In most cases vandalism is easier to remove than it is to create. That one fact is what stops Wikipedia from exploding.
 * With that in mind, I'd hate to have complex rules and procedure for vandalism removers here on the ref desk.
 * On the other hand, it's clear that letting people delete anything that they personally believe is a 'trolling' question leads to anger and confusion. And at least some deletions being performed that would not have achieved consensus had they been discussed.
 * I wish I had a good answer. My only thought is that maybe some sort of automated script could break this deadlock between keeping the ref desk clean, and the need for consensus.  Some sort of "Send this thread to the trash can" button that would inform everyone involved and move the thread somewhere where it could be restored if needed.  (This is clearly not a great solution, I've just thought up half a dozen objections, I mention it in the hopes that it will inspire someone else to come up with a good solution.)APL (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be case-by-case. This seems like a reasonable approach: (1) Some of LC's posts are so obviously trolling, they can be zapped on sight. (2) Others look like trolling but are debatable and should be brought here by the deleter if they either have doubts or want other opinions. (3) To cover the middle ground (as with this question), if someone thinks it's trolling and someone else doesn't, the latter should bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "bringing it here" is not easy if it's deleted before I see it. APL (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One suggestion that's been floated here before, and that might neatly solve this kind of problem, is if each question existed on an individual page that got transcluded onto a central "Science" page or "Humanities" page or whatever. For an example of how this works, see WP:FPC. In terms of removing posts, this setup would be particularly useful - the offending post need not be deleted, it only needs to have the transclusion removed while the question is discussed. If it's agreed that the question is no good, the page could simply be left out in limbo where it would bother no-one, deleted through PROD/MFD/whatever, or neatly oversighted with a minimal amount of disruption to other questions on the desk. If it's agreed that the question is okay, then it can simply be re-transcluded. The downside of the transclusion system is that it's slightly trickier to do than simply clicking a button to ask a new question (at least, that was the case when I was active on FPC; it may have been simplified some since then). Of course, making it slightly harder to ask a question might not be an entirely bad thing as it might encourage more people to try searching first instead. Matt Deres (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that before. That's an interesting, outside-the-box-thinking idea. It would also be useful to cover the tedious situation of "this question is on the wrong page". Simply transclude it to the right page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the link in people's histories would still go to the right place. APL (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This would be handy. I like this solution. If some kind of scripting could automatically give us a "List of Questions No Longer Transcluded" it would solve the problem I mention above in my reply to Bugs. APL (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And as noted by Matt, this approach would appear to take away these deletion issues, for the most part. One thing: How would we handle obvious trolling or offensive questions, such as "Why are [ethnic group 1] inferior/superior to [ethnic group 2]?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a standalone page, it could be deleted through WP:MFD. Questions that violated BLP or other obviously horrible stuff could possibly be done through WP:CSD. Most importantly, cutting the transclusion would remove it from the public eye (except for those that already knew it was there), which somewhat cuts the need to hash through the removal discussion quickly. Matt Deres (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this idea was floated before (there's this, but there may have been other discussions). Matt Deres (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be enough to kill the idea if trolls have to go through the standard MFD process.
 * Also, can anons participate in the sort of thing we're talking about? Since it involves the creation of new pages it seems problematic. APL (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a concern I raised the first time around, but it occurs to me that IPs are only prohibited from creating articles, not pages, which is a seemingly minor but significant technicality. For example, I believe they are able to create the talk page to an article. Even if they can't, it's likely an issue that can be fixed if we want to move forward. To my mind, the more significant obstacle is how non-intuitive it is to do the transcluding (assuming that hasn't been fixed or upgraded somehow). However, even that must be automate-able because RFDs can be automatically created and transcluded using Huggle and other automated tools. I'm not a tech-guy, but none of this seems to be particularly tricky to me as it just deals with stuff that's already out there. Honestly, I think it's just a question of whether we want to go forward with it. And since we usually agree on everything here, I'm sure that will no problem... Matt Deres (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about simply putting a permanent "Deleted questions" section on this talk page? This way, the editors can simply cut the question from the RD and paste it into the "Deleted questions" sections. We could keep the, say, 10 most recent deletes at all times. This cut and paste process only takes seconds, effectively removes the unwanted posts, and leaves an opportunity for anyone to comment and undo any removals right here on the talk page. --DI (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I admit it is not as elegant as the solution proposed above by Matt, but on the other hand it is perhaps easier to implement. --DI (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be adequate to introduce a strengthen the guideline saying that deleting a question must be reported on this page, not failing to give the diff . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is recommended practice in Reference desk/Guidelines - in the section When removing or redacting a posting it says "When you remove a posting, it is recommended to note this on the Reference desk talk page. Include a diff of your edit.". Do you think we need to strengthen or expand this ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to have deleted questions as a sub-page, kind of along the lines DagI suggests? There could be a permanent link to it at the top of this page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else noticed that the OP of this entire thread was blocked for evading a block on their prior account, likely one of our regular disruptive personalities/trolls... I suggest we close this down to stop contributing to their enjoyment of starting controversy just to be a pain in the ass. -- Jayron  32  00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue in favor of keeping it going, except there doesn't seem to be any consensus emerging for any substantial change in approach. So go ahead and box it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't object to it being boxed up, but I don't really see the benefit - we stopped talking about whatever the OP was going on about long ago... Matt Deres (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we might have a fight any minute (always a chance of that) and then a troll might get some sense of satisfaction. That's the theory, I think. We could alternatively just not have a fight, but that's a much harder strategy to coordinate. 213.122.64.30 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I see now that the issue is more complicated than I first thought. (I'd also like to apologize if my WWII reference seemed cold or insensitive—that certainly was unintentional on my part.)

I'm definitely going to read the book Sex and Sex Worship (1922) as well as Ellis's The Evolution of Modesty, and see where the topic leads from there!

———"Has anyone else noticed that the OP of this entire thread was blocked for evading a block on their prior account, likely one of our regular disruptive personalities/trolls... I suggest we close this down to stop contributing to their enjoyment of starting controversy just to be a pain in the ass."———"I won't object to it being boxed up, but I don't really see the benefit - we stopped talking about whatever the OP was going on about long ago..."———Indeed, Jayron & Matt Deres. The actual question was resolved in less than two days, but this discussion has lasted for far longer.

———"I would argue in favor of keeping it going, except there doesn't seem to be any consensus emerging for any substantial change in approach. So go ahead and box it up."———Your wish is my command, Baseball Bugs! Pine (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment Simultaneous equation

 * Moved from Reference desk/Mathematics.--Salix (talk): 11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place for this, but I need this resolving. Could someone take a look at this reference desk thread and this talk page thread. Whose solutions were correct, mine or Bo's? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are both wrong. Your error is thinking that this is even worth arguing over. You're both intelligent enough to understand exactly what the other's points are, and now you're just having a shouting match over what goals one ought to serve most when replying to a silly homework exercise posted to the refdesk without comment. Get over it and go do something constructive instead. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But then engaging in such arguments is typical for mathematicians :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's quite a bad faith reply there Henning. It would have been better to say nothing at all. If I was intelligent enough to understand why, what I see as, incorrect solutions are correct then I would not have asked for clarification. But then I would have assumed that you were intelligent enough to have understood that in the first place. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with Henning, but I'll take the more positive approach and say you are both correct. Indeed, when a neat, explicit exact representation of a solution is possible, it should be preferred, and anything else is overkill. On the other hand, it is important to realize that outside of high school, many problems will not have such a solution, and it's useful to get accustomed to more general ways of expressing solutions. Indeed, a general way to specify a solution to a system of equations is to express it implicitly via an equation(s) (which could be simpler than the original system) while giving a numerical approximation to distinguish the one particular root we are interested in. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is not a trivial argument about a single homework problem. It is a much more fundamental problem that has been raging between mathematician and non-mathematicians-who-use-math for centuries.  When is a Numerical approximation "good enough".  For many mathematicians in many circumstances, the answer is never.  Anything less than an exact correct answer does not deserve an "=".  However, to the vast majority of people who use math in their jobs (engineers, scientists, actuaries, computer scientists, etc.), an equal sign may be warranted when a numerical approximation is good enough for the task at hand.  Yes, it may seem like a silly argument for those who don't have a strong opinion on the matter, which is most people.  But just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile argument to have.


 * I agree with Meni's sage advice: both of you have valid points when looking at the problem from different points of view. Instead of talking past each other, you should both recognize that, from a certain point of view, the other has something important to add to the discussion.  It would be even better if you could explain what point of view your answer is best suited for (neither of you have done so, in my reading), so that the OP may realize when one approach is preferred over the other. Buddy431 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bo Jacoby presented a method of solving the OP's equations that was correct, though the answer can be criticised for implying that it is the "only" standard method, and the link to Gaussian elimination is likely to be beyond what the OP needs. A more sensible link that should have been given is Simultaneous equations. However after Bo Jacoby explained that his solutions were worked to two decimal places, which is reasonable, Fly by Night dismissed this abruptly (smilicon notwithstanding) as "incorrect". . It is true that exact solutions are possible and Bo Jacoby Fly by Night later gave them needing 12 decimal places (recurring). However that is no grounds for attacking Bo Jacoby's method which can be worked to equal accuracy if desired. It is not clear what Fly by Night means by claiming that the exact results "lead to more accurate decimal expansions" than Bo Jacoby's correctly rounded values. Fly by Night campaigns in multiple posts using strident claims that "anyone that can do long division by hand can calculate...to arbitrary degrees of accuracy" and that Bo Jacoby's high school interdicts equation solutions that are given to a particular (should be stated) accuracy. I am not impressed by Fly by Night lecturing about matrix application to systems of polynomials in a single variable which is unrelated to the OP's equations, nor by the patronising words "The moral of the story here is that we should always use our intelligence and try not to blindly apply mathematical machinery". It is disengenuous for Fly by Night to complain that a thread is "farcical" when it is repeatedly driven by Fly by Night's own largely self-centered posts that are continued defiantly on this page and with rudeness ("Do me a favour: go and ask another mathematician (or a school boy on a bus) for the correct answer before you continue to be so obtuse. You're just making a fool out of yourself now, and you're annoying the hell out of me.") on their own page. Fly by Night please walk away because while it is commendable to be right, it is indefensible to persist in attacking a simpler qualified statement that is also right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird archiving on Science desk
The Noah's Ark thread is still displaying for me on the Science reference desk. I clicked on edit to make a comment and inadvertently edited the archive. What's going on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Older sections which have been moved to the archive pages are still transcluded onto the desks for a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.90.38 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. This is normal functionality, and there's nothing wrong with editing the archived entry. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Offer of free membership of referencing tool
Earlier today at the top of my watchlist there was an offer to get free membership of a site which would provide free online access to many reference books or journals to help in referencing wiki articles. It sounded very interesting but I was in a mad rush out the door. I decided I'd apply for it this evening but now the link on my watchlist is gone: anyone know what the site was or the relevant page to go to? Valenciano (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Credo accounts is the on-wiki link. For what it's worth: I enthusiastically signed up and received an account sometime ago, with the first batch. Yet, in my own experience while searching for references at the desks, I find virtually nothing I couldn't have found otherwise online, usually I find quite a bit less in any of Credo's reference works and journals. I don't think it can be compared to JSTOR, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)her


 * Thanks. I've applied anyway, hopefully something useful will be there. Valenciano (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't RD/ALL advertised?
By accident, I found WP:RD/ALL - which I find quite useful, because I often read through all the RD pages, and it would be nice to get the last day or two from all subjects on one page. Can we have RD/ALL "advertised", ie listed explicitly on WP:RD and the "Choose a topic" table on each of the subject pages? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I just tried to load that page and it caused my browser to crash. Maybe that's why it's not widely advertised; it's simply too long. --Viennese Waltz 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference desk pages edit-protected
Something seems to have gone screwy today with the reference desk pages. They are all read-only to me (not logged in), until I append "purge=yes" to the URL, when they become editable again. Then when I remove "purge=yes" they go back to being protected. Local refresh (F5 etc.) makes no difference. I think something is messed up. 86.179.115.46 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this too a few times recently. Someone else also reported it here. I don't know what's causing it 82.43.90.38 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's part of the general craziness resulting from the installation of the new version of MediaWiki. There are plenty of various weird complaints like that on the help desk and that's been the most frequent reason given. If it keeps up, drop a line at the help desk as it may be something else entirely. Matt Deres (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is another problem too. Several times recently I have seen a read-only version of a page displayed, per the above bug, and then adding "purge=yes" makes it editable... but it also goes back an old version of the page. Currently at the Science desk I cannot get an editable up-to-date version where I can reply to a recent comment. Someone really needs to look at these issues because it is impairing the usability of the pages. I reported it here but there has been no visible sign of any interest. 86.179.115.50 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice removed (weight loss drugs)
I have removed a request for medical advice from RD/S. (Original post: .) the original poster asked us to name a pill that would suppress his hunger long enough "for me to get back down to a normal weight", and asked us to provide links to suppliers. It is beyond the scope of the Desk to recommend anorectic drugs or to link our readers with online pharmaceutical suppliers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the phrase you quote makes it clear the poster has self interest, but I see no evidence of requests for diagnosis or prognosis as described by our guidelines. I really don't think that my providing a link to an article on anorectics constituted medical advice. Regardless, a followup question: Can we please leave such questions around long enough for the poster to be educated on our guidelines? In this case, given the chance, I imagine the poster would have been happy to post a new question, such as "What kinds of treatments are available to suppress appetite?" SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines also bar offering treatment options; it's not just diagnoses and prognoses that are out of bounds. While I wish we could leave the questions up for educational purposes, in practice we've found that doing so almost always serves as an invitation for new editors to ignore our guidelines and add more medical advice to the thread.
 * We don't want to encourage the original poster to rewrite his question so that his intent to use us as a source of medical advice is better concealed; we want to discourage him from risking serious harm by seeking this type of advice at the Reference Desk. Reading between the lines, the original question might as well have been "I'm looking for a magic weight loss pill.  Can anyone suggest a drug that will let me starve myself without discomfort, and give me a link to a dodgy online pharmacy that will sell me some?"  This is a question that should be handled by the individual's physician and pharmacist, not by us.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But as I've said before when this subject comes up, the fact that it's easy to rewrite the question so that it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines only serves to illustrate the pointlessness of the guidelines. I wish everyone who comes here seeking medical advice would learn to rephrase their questions in a depersonalized way, because that would illustrate how easy it is to (as you once put it to me) "game our system". --Viennese Waltz 15:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, our current practice amounts to discrimination based on savviness. Anyone who wants medical advice here can ask for it and receive it, given proper abstraction. As an alternate approach, could we not instead delete responses that constitute medical advice? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to think of it as discrimination on the basis of honesty – people who wilfully mislead and lie to the volunteers here are more likely to fall victim to inadvertent harm – but frame it as you wish. I believe that most people who ask questions seeking medical advice at the Ref Desks are honestly unaware of the scope of our guidelines, and aren't out to trick us into violating our ethical principles; Viennese Waltz is quite correct that we are poorly protected against the malicious and deceitful, but I think the vast majority of participants at the Ref Desk do so in good faith.
 * As for deleting only the responses containing medical advice, it would work only if we believed responses would be consistently read and removed by other editors before the original poster reads them. I don't think this is a valid assumption.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good removal. Even the ads for diet products typically advise the buyer to consult a physician. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about "gaming the system". I said this once, and I've repeated it many times since, and it's never been seriously disagreed with:
 * [People might say that] "If we accept abstract or hypothetical questions, all someone who wants improper advice has to do is couch their question as one, and they'll trick us into giving it."
 * Yeah, well, but: so what. That proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that they do thoroughly understand the risk of taking unsolicited advice from strangers, and that they have pretty unambiguously assumed all that risk for themselves. We don't have to (and, at least in my opinion, shouldn't have to) feel guilty or immoral or as if we've taken a risk by answering such a question; we ought to be able to Assume that the ostensibly-hypothetical question was asked in Good Faith.
 * —Steve Summit (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. There's nothing unethical about a person using the ref desks as a way to gather information. For example, consider the question "Which drug has been scientifically shown to be most effective at relieving headaches?" The ethics of us answering do not depend on whether the asker had a headache when they asked. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal, or at least feel this is not so clear-cut as to warrant a removal without discussion here first. I think the best way to handle this might have been to state that we cannot give medical advice for the person's particular situation but that anyone who is interested in the topic of appetite-suppression drugs can see the article anorectic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I answered the question on the second go-around by pointing to our article on anorectics, and it's hard for me to see anything that could be wrong with that. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You honestly consider wikipedia a reliable source for medical advice??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Special:Contributions/Baseball_carrots→ 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good removal. It's easily recognized as a request for medical advice.  Splitting hairs on how to answer is not part of our guidance.  When it comes to medical advice, special rules apply.  -- Scray (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have long opposed the rules against potential medical advice, when it is not presented as such. But I'm not going to try to reopen the debate when the question doesn't have a good answer, especially for a class of drug with a bad reputation for lethal side effects. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Homework issue
We're having a little difficulty at "deutsch grammatik" about how to handle what appear to be homework questions. I'm copping some flak for trying to keep to the policy (after all, what's the point of having a policy if we abandon it at will?).

The last relevant post was from User:DuncanHill, addressed to me (User:JackofOz):
 * As soon as that template gets used, some people seems to stop thinking for themselves - you criticised those who seemed to think it acceptable to answer, and you demanded the OP prove himself innocent before anyone answer him. Questioners should not be expected to prove themselves worthy of our attention - if you don't want to try to help someone then fine, just don't do it. Instead you ask someone to prove a negative, and have a go at those who do try to help. You assumed bad faith of the OP, and you assumed bad faith of those who tried to answer, accusing them of lacking collegiate spirit. You really ought to take a step back and look at yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My response continues here:
 * I rather think you're putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my brain, Duncan. My starting points are (a) the rule we have that we do not do people's homework for them and (b) the set of words we use to advise OPs who ask homework questions not to expect an answer.


 * If I had posted what Colin Fine did, I'd have felt mightily ignored when others came past and, without even an acknowledgement of the original response, just proceeded to provide the very answer that the OP had just been told they wouldn't be getting, and why not.  If we're going to be talking about "unkindness", that's where it started.  And yes, it was an example of lack of collegiate spirit.  The polite thing to do would have been to start out with something like: "Colin, I don't see it that way.  I don't get that it's a homework question, so I'm going to be giving the OP an answer".  But was there anything even remotely acknowledging Colin's existence or his post?  No, there wasn't.  If we can't behave kindly towards each other, how in the hell can we get to behaving kindly to OPs?  Charity begins at home, I seem to recall.  I did criticize those who provided the answer the OP needed for his homework, and I don't resile from that.  My only regret was that I resorted to sarcasm, which I'm sorry about.


 * I did not "demand the OP prove himself innocent" (and wow, such melodramatic language for something I didn't even do to begin with).  There's nothing wrong with saying "We think X is the case, based on the evidence before us.  If you disagree, you're welcome to tell us" – which is the basic message in Colin's post.  This set of words has been used a zillion times before, so why the kerfuffle now?  If you disagree about this set of words, then take that up on the talk page.  If you disagree we should even have a policy of not doing homework questions, then take that up on the talk page.  If you don't disagree about either of these things, what is the problem?


 * I deny once more that I assumed bad faith on the part of the OP or anyone else. Maybe we speak different Englishes, but to me "bad faith" means you're doing something with an unspoken ulterior motive in mind, or for a reason that is contrary to why you say you’re doing.  There is no evidence the OP operated in such a manner.  He was simply unaware of our policy of not doing homework questions, so Colin let him know.  If he hadn't, someone else would have.   And what the later respondents did in providing substantial answers after the OP was told we would not be providing such answers, was in my view inappropriate, but still not meriting the label of "bad faith".  So, please make arguments based on facts, not on what you assume to be the case.  If you do make assumptions, please state them, rather than simply assuming your assumptions are intrinsically correct.  Nobody is that good.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Q: Is there any reason to believe that this must be, or even most likely is, a homework question? If so, could someone explain that to me, because I don't see it. (Link: Reference desk/Language)  WikiDao    &#9775;  00:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always a judgment call, unless they come right out and tell us it's for homework. The full text of the OP's question was:
 * wo kann man einen kaffee trinken? Plz answer the question without any grammaticall mistake.
 * Why would he need such an answer? Maybe he's visiting Germany soon.  In that case, he's going to need a whole lot more German than the answer to this single question about coffee drinking.  The next most obvious thought is that he's doing a German language course, and has been given a comprehension test.  He's been given a German question, has to interpret it correctly, then come up with an answer that is appropriate to the question, correct in practical terms, and grammatically correct.  That's why I assume Colin believed it's a homework question; when I first read it, that's exactly what I thought too.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * S/he might have just wanted to strike up a conversation on the spur of the moment with a German guy/girl. Happens all the time, at least as often as German class does... ;)  WikiDao    &#9775;  03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's possible. Colin still made a reasonable and justifiable call in the circumstances.  But whether it really is or isn't homework, or even whether Colin's call was justified, isn't the question here.  It's what happened after Colin told the OP that he was treating it as homework and not answering it.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this ought to be discussed. There is a problem (or two) here, I agree.  I think the important thing now is to try to talk about it here rather than on the desk itself.  WikiDao    &#9775;  04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree entirely. That is, after all, why I brought it here.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  04:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I never knew the Germans were so anal as to refuse to talk to you if your German grammar isn't perfect Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I hear being expressed is a lot of tension and simmering conflict on that desk. The points you are making there should be discussed here, Duncan.  What do you see as the core problem at the RD at this point, and how can it be resolved?  WikiDao    &#9775;  01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves." The purpose of that statement is to discourage OP's from exploiting the Ref. Desks for their class work. But note that we have no problem with many questions that could be connected with class work and it is just exam-like formulated questions that are unwelcome. However the statement must not be a means for one respondent to imterdict other volunteers who must remain free to interpret "aid them" as they see fit. That understanding makes the above debate between ColinFine, Jack of Oz, et al unnecessary Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW:


 * There is difference between "doing the homework" for an OP and "helping" the OP in this task.
 * Nowhere in the thread has a ref desker supplied a definite answer in German which the OP could have copy-pasted into his/her exerceise book. Therefore:  the WP:RD did NOT "do the OP´s homework".
 * A full half of the entire thread is taken up by the metadiscussion between regulars on the application of rules. The stated rule (as per the above note) has NOT been contravened by the staff of the ref desk.
 * Metadiscussions have no place on the ref desk proper and should be conducted on the RD talk page.
 * The ref desk is not solely used by the OPs (and the RD staff), it has a wide audience of "curious" readers who browse through the questions and often stumble upon questions / answers / remarks of interest to them.
 * An RD regular who states "it doesn't matter a tinker's cuss what the OP wants" and ridicules the OP´s knowledge of English - the name indicates the OP is from the Indian subcontinent - should reconsider his attitude. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I find it a little extreme to say there's a connection between the OP not coming back and whatever mistakes were made in the way the question was handled. Considering how many OPs don't come back (probably a majority if you're talking about newly register users and anons only), when we clearly need them to and we are polite etc, the most likely explanation is they just didn't come back. So blaming others without any evidence does no one any good. Of course, this doesn't mean it's acceptable to handle a question poorly Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As some of you will be aware, I do not like this talk page and stopped using it a long time ago (in part at least to avoid the horrible atmosphere which used to, and may still, prevail here). I have in the past expressed dissatisfaction with the way the "no homework" rule is applied, and indeed with it's very existence. Refdesk answerers are volunteers and should not be prevented from answering any question which takes their interest - whether it's because someone thinks it's homework, or an admin is secretly allowing a banned user to post but then decides they don't like a particular question from that banned user. This diff looks a lot like a demand to prove innocence to me. The previous comment from Jack, here, is an attack on those who did attempt to answer the question. Anything else you need to know I have said in the thread on the language desk. I'm not watchlisting this, use my talk page, or RfCU or ANI if you still don't like it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with providing a helpful answer to questions, including homework questions, but in the case of homework questions I think we provide the best service (as a refdesk) when we guide rather than doing the work completely. If the homework template is used as a reminder (and to help set expectations) paired with a helpful guiding answer, IMHO we can strike a useful balance.  -- Scray (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like this one is mostly between you and Duncan, Jack. WikiDao    &#9775;  00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree, WikiDao. There seem to be a few things I need to say. Some concern Duncan, but they are matters of interest to the whole refdesk community.

My alleged ridiculing of an OP’s knowledge of English
(per Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM) The very first response was from JIP, noting that, although the OP asked for a mistake-free answer, the question itself was not mistake-free. DuncanHill called this “attacking the question”. It was not any sort of attack, it was merely an observation, and there’s nothing wrong with making such an observation.

I later referred to JIP’s observation. On re-reading, it looks very much like I was making my own comment on the question (“Hardly from the Parnassus of Good English”) – and I was, there’s no getting away from it. But that wasn’t the main point of that part of my post. I was mainly commenting on the fact that the mistake had already been noted, not on the mistake per se. It was not, and would never be, my intention to ridicule an OP’s knowledge of English. Help, explain, correct, comment, whatever – but never ridicule. I can see how the very opposite impression could have been gained by my injudicious use of language in this case, so that’s a lesson I take on board.

Indian subcontinental reference
Cookatoo’s reference to the OP seeming to be from the Indian subcontinent, in the same breath as he claimed I was ridiculing his English – that’s just a little too close to the bone for me. If I were truly ridiculing him, what difference would it make where he comes from? Or is Cookatoo saying I regard some humans as more/less equal than others? I take very seriously even the hint of any suggestion of racism on my part. As I’ve made it freely known here, my own life partner is from Sri Lanka, so I’d hardly be choosing that part of the world to have a go at if I were coming over all superior - which I wasn’t.

Tinker’s cuss
Another controversial statement I made was “It doesn’t matter a tinker’s cuss what the OP wants”. Cookatoo says this is cause for me to reconsider my attitude. Read in isolation, this could seem to indicate I don’t give a damn about our OPs. But then, why would I have spent large parts of the past 7 years roaming around the ref desks? To inflate my under-developed ego? It’s small, I grant you, but not so small that it needs daily boosting.

But it wasn’t said in isolation, was it. It was said in response to a comment from Baseball Bugs that missed the point of the existing conversation. The point I was making was in strong support of OUR policy of not doing OPs’ homework for them. Just because they want us to do it for them, is not a reason for us to do it for them. That is all I meant by that comment, and I would suggest a re-reading of that part of the conversation will bear me out.

I would only add that for Cookatoo to take these two comments out of context and make them cause for me to reconsider my attitude, is not worthy of an editor with whom I’ve had friendly relations for years and hope to continue to do so. This has been resolved elsewhere.

DuncanHill’s issues with the homework policy
Duncan’s made it clear he not only disagrees with how the homework policy is implemented, he doesn’t even agree we should have such a policy in the first place. That’s a problem.

Everyone here is expected to abide by guidelines, rules, policies and consensuses. If an editor has an issue with one of them, he is free to take up the matter in the relevant forum. If he can effect a change, fine; if not, he has to live with it until he can get the change made, if that ever happens. What he is not free to do in the meantime is to act as if the policy does not exist; or, more to the point, to expect others to act as if the policy does not exist.

What if he disagreed with the “no medical/legal advice” rules? Would that disagreement give him carte blanche to dispense legal/medical advice on the ref desk to whoever asks for it? Certainly not. But that’s at the logical extreme of “Refdesk answerers are volunteers and should not be prevented from answering any question which takes their interest”.

I guess it concerns me that an editor can take another editor to task for the manner in which he has conducted himself (which may well be valid criticism), but in the same breath say that he himself is free to choose which rules he will and will not acknowledge or abide by. Isn’t there just a hint of inconsistency there?

How should the homework policy be applied?
Not once but three times, Duncan accused me of “demanding the OP prove himself innocent before anyone answers him”. For the third time, I absolutely deny I, or anyone, has made any such demand. (Do I hear a cock crowing somewhere?)  That is not how the policy has ever operated, nor should it be seen that way.

There are certain questions we refrain from answering, and we all know what they are. There are good reasons why we have these policies. But for every such policy, there are numerous ways of putting it into practice, and maybe it’s opportune to have a discussion about this now, so that we’re all on the same wavelength.

My impression has always been that if a respondent believes a question is being asked in order to get answers to homework questions the OP should be working out themselves, the respondent is free to tell the OP we won’t be providing the answer they’re after, and why not (exactly as ColinFine did in the question that started this off). If the question was not for homework, the OP is free to say so, and they’ll generally be believed. End of issue. Or, an editor can simply ask why the OP wants to know; or can ask if it’s a homework question.

But if the OP does not respond, what happens then? Do we just leave it and go on to the next OP? Or do we give some hints, or relevant reading/links, or some other form of help? How do we decide how far to go, without actually doing the work for them? I doubt there’s one size that fits all cases, but maybe we can come up with some general pointers as to how to proceed. The template includes a link to Do your own homework, which itself contains some advice for the OP on how to look for the information they need. Maybe that resolves the matter in the majority of cases, which would explain why the majority of OPs don’t come back.

I look forward to comments full of sweet reason. Because he does not watchlist this page, I'll be letting Duncan know about the above post. Where, how and even whether he responds to the bits that concern him, is up to him. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dragged back here against my will, I repeat, as Jack appears to have missed it "This diff looks a lot like a demand to prove innocence to me. The previous comment from Jack, here, is an attack on those who did attempt to answer the question." As to ignoring policy when it suits - everybody does it sometimes, and as IAR it is encouraged. How Jack imagines that his "Parnassus" comment could be taken as anything other than ridiculing the OP's English I don't know, my theory of mind can't stretch that far. JIP's initial comment wasn't worded as an attempt to help OP improve his English, just as a negative comment upon it. Now that really is my last comment here - if anyone wants to say anything further to me then say it on my talk page, don't link me back here. DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made my reply to Duncan on his talkpage. But since he's accusing me here of attacking people, I will say that the second link provides zero evidence of any attack.  It was a comment on behaviour, and on what I saw as a lack of collegiate spirit - it was not an attack on people.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It can be collegiate at times, but I certainly think the RD could be more collegial. How can we try to get that to happen?  WikiDao    &#9775;  18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack, your response above ("if a respondent believes a question is being asked in order to get answers to homework questions ...") sounds very reasonable, but it's written entirely about the person who views the question as a homework problem. All actions are presented as voluntary and up to answerer's discretion, but no mention at all about what should happen regarding a third party who doesn't agree with that assessment. Your comment, however, reads to me like you're proposing that if one person posts that he thinks it's a homework problem, everyone else is mandated to behave as if it was, even if they disagree with the assessment. It comes off like while you get discretion to view the question as homework, you don't get discretion to think otherwise. The sarcastic tone (e.g. the somewhat juvenile "..., not") indicates disdain of and an intent to ridicule those who didn't agree. You talk of the spirit of the RefDesk, but the spirit I see in the RefDesk these days is one where ridicule and harassment are used as weapons of coercion. I fear that "collegiate atmosphere" is a euphemism for "does things my way without dissent". (Now I just wait for people to dig up some misstatement I made five years ago with which you can lambaste me, and then mock me as a "driveby" or other such insults because I don't have an account.) -- 174.31.198.112 (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll start at the end and go backwards if I may (I'm from Down Under).  I'm not one of those who uses the "drive-by" language.  I treat all comers here equally, and you do not have to prove your credentials before I'll recognise you (not that creating an account here proves a damn thing; although it does give you a name rather than a number, which is nice. Numbers are so confusing for humans, don't you think).
 * Up above, I did acknowledge that I had resorted to sarcasm, and I expressed regret that I had done that. In the same paragraph, I said:
 * The polite thing to do would have been to start out with something like: "Colin, I don't see it that way. I don't get that it's a homework question, so I'm going to be giving the OP an answer".
 * Let me make an analogy. Say an OP asks a question about some medical matter.  The first respondent believes the OP is wanting a diagnosis of their personal medical condition, so he issues the usual wording that we cannot provide medical advice.  So far, so good.  The second respondent reads the question, but does NOT think they're after personal medical advice, so they go ahead and provide an answer.  Wouldn't the polite thing for the 2nd respondent to do, be to at least acknowledge what the 1st respondent said, and say why they disagree, before launching into their own answer?  Otherwise, it looks like the 1st respondent has been totally ignored.  Well, that's what happened in the thread in question, and that's what got up my nose.  Hence my frustration and, being human, my sarcasm.  This is what I mean by "collegiate spirit" - respondents actually respecting what other respondents have to say, even if they profoundly disagree with it.  Respecting what others say implies acknowledging, even implicitly, that they did say something.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with disagreements, and later respondents are certainly not bound by what earlier ones said, but a little respect goes a long way towards making the ref desks a less volatile and more harmonious place.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think that expecting an explicit acknowledgment every time (to the extent of getting annoyed when it doesn't happen) might be expecting a bit too much, given the variety of people answering, I don't think the sentiment you express is unreasonable. I apologize for missing your previous comments, what you've said makes perfect sense and seems reasonable in light of them (although I hope you realize how someone not aware of the spirit in which they were intended might possibly misinterpret them as an attack). Finally, I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, were one to use "drive-by" language - that was more of a rant as to the generally toxic state of the RefDesk these days. (Which probably wasn't helped by my posting about it in a way that you took it personally. Sorry about that.) -- 174.31.198.112 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your gracious reply. Yep, I probably am expecting too much, but I'd rather be guided by Teddy Roosevelt: Far better it is to dare mighty things - even though checked by failure - than to take rank with those poor souls who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight which knows neither victory nor defeat.
 * Is there a place where all we misunderstood geniuses can get together and have a good time? :)
 * Have no fear, I didn't take the drive-by thing personally, because I've never used the term except when quoting others. Cheers.  --  Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  08:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The homework part of the refdesk guidelines instructs those asking questions, but provides substantial latitude for responders to decide for themselves how to proceed. It is not policy and it does not prohibit response.  Homework questions rarely come only one per week, so anyone responding can scarcely be accused of any meaningful denial of educational opportunity by telling the answer.  The purpose of the guideline should simply be that the student should inquire about underlying concepts for his own benefit. Wnt (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A question I removed
I removed this question. I think it is unanswerable. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would not surprise me at all if exactly the sort of studies he's asking for have been done. The results might be interesting to compare cross-cultures. Tt sure would be difficult to get it double-blind without some sort of ethics problem, though. (On the other hand, it's surprising how often sociologists don't worry about double-blind-ness.) APL (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to reverse my removal of the question and put it back on the Desk that is up to you. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, I just did so, sorry.
 * I actually was about to do so before you even posted here, but I was going through the asker's history to make sure he wasn't a known trouble-maker. (Doesn't seem to be, asks a lot of questions, but most seem legit.) APL (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bugs has re-removed it. I understand Bus stop's qualms, but I thought the question was valid and think it should be reinstated. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a question asking for opinions. If you want that kind of question on the ref desk, go ahead and reinstate it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What? Did you read it through to the end? He's asking for "surveys". It is entirely possible that such things exist. Sociologists have gotten grants to study stranger things.
 * I hate to edit-war over such a goofy question, but Bugs' reasoning here is clearly not valid.  Restored. APL (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So is Bus Stop's, apparently. Surveys? Good luck with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there an answer to the OP's question? Dunno, but I will take a look around. Sociologists and psychologists study some weird stuff (ever notice that in most grocery stores, the produce is right up front and almost always on the right hand side?) and some kind of investigation into which parts women consider most private would hardly be the most esoteric of these. Even without looking for references, I think we can all agree that different places will net different results. In the US, where breasts are nearly as sexualized as the vulva, it wouldn't be surprising if women considered unwillingly showing their breasts to be the height of embarrassment. In tropical areas, where minimal clothing is required, things would be very different. They'd also be different in places like, say, southern Europe, where nudity in general is treated with less hype than in the US. What I'm saying is - the topic can be discussed reasonably and there's no particular reason to think it hasn't been studied by someone. But, frankly, what's with this attitude? If nobody can pin down a study, then so be it, nobody has to respond to the thread. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A third editor has now pointed out, on that page, that the question should have stayed deleted. If you can find an actual source to answer that silly question, go ahead. You can cite articles about modesty and such, but that's not the same as a survey... besides which, the OP could have figured all that out himself. It looks like a trolling question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The question is unanswerable, and no, sociologists are not that stupid. Besides the topic reeks of trolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Has it become policy to delete questions that ask for a reference if an editor judges that such a reference might not exist? APL (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Has it become policy to accept questions even when they look like trolling? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "About Sex" != "Trolling". Many human beings of all ages are very curious about sexuality. While perhaps not a model question, This question is more specific, and less inane than many that are allowed to stand here. The fact that it specifically asks for a reference not an opinion probably puts it in the top 50% right there.APL (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view the asking for a reference is just a pretence to make the question look more like a proper RD question. The OP is not the slightest bit interested in any such "research", he's just being salacious and we should not be entertaining him. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. Check out his question from 2006, which among other things displays maybe a little too much casual familiarity with pre-adolescents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I object to is that this question, from a repeat non-troll question asker (And occasional article contributor), is apparently bothering people because it's about (tee-hee!) naked ladies and even (gasp!) sexuality, but everyone knows that isn't a valid reason to remove a question, so they're dancing around trying to come up with flimsy pretenses to delete the question because it offends their delicate puritan sensibilities. (And are now moving on to getting angry that this wink-and-a-nod censorship isn't being let slide.)
 * If a question is about sexuality we handle it like adults.
 * If a question is requires a reference that might not exist we let it slowly slide up and off the page. APL (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Think so? Read the question that guy posted in 2006, and then try saying the above again with a straight face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Care to provide a diff link? Because I can find no edits at all to the desks from that user in 2006. And assuming this phantom 2006 edit does exist somewhere, is an edit from 5 years ago relevant at all to this? You were blocked for harassment, personal attacks and disruption, twice, in 2007. I think letting bygones be bygones is the phrase which applies to this. 78.119.61.236 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the references provided by Bus Stop on the ref desk where the question-in-question is. Then drive on by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It sure would be simpler if you would just provide a link right here. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The links are here. There is no reason to move them here. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. It saves readers time that they would have to spend going to that other page to try to figure out which links you are talking about.  And, since the topic of this section is removal, those links (and the entire section) may not be there when we look, which would then mean resorting to the painfully slow process of digging through the history.  Frankly, I might be willing to pick on links when they are presented directly, but not when I have to go search for the links first.  Life is too short. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StuRat—the question itself fails to hold up as an area worth delving into on these desks. It fails on the grounds of specificity. There cannot be a survey on something undefined, and there are too many variables in the "question". It is just an open-ended topic for discussion masquerading as a "question". Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see "unanswerable" as a reason to remove a post. There are many questions where we can't find any answer, that doesn't mean the question should be removed.  Also, it makes it look like we remove Q's we can't answer just to make our performance at answering Q's look better.  As said previously, if it can't be answered, just leave it there, unanswered. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The person posting the question asks: "I'm curious as to what women instinctively cover when they find themselves undressed in front of strangers." Wouldn't the answer to that question depend on a lot of factors that would be considered variables in any objective sense? How can a question like that be answered? There are so many variables that there can only follow a discussion. Nothing approaching an answer can possibly emerge. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He specifically asks for surveys, so the question can easily be answered with a reference to surveys, or left unanswered if such surveys don't exist. I see no reason why the question needs to be answered with a debate or discussion. 78.119.61.236 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 78.119.61.236—one can only get an answer when a question is properly formulated. What surveys do you think would satisfactorily answer the question, which has not been properly formulated? What sort of "survey" information would you suggest might answer this "question"? The posting requests a scattershot sort of response not in keeping with minimum standards that we should be maintaining at a reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So what's wrong with telling them that it's unlikely that such a survey exists? What's wrong with providing information that's broadly applicable to the same kind of thing, such as I mentioned above about the variable sexuality of female breasts playing a significant role in such decisions? What's wrong with pointing out to some of the early respondents that it was a frequent trope in 19th century "tales of the exotic" to say that the women from such-and-such land are most concerned about showing off the backs of their elbows or something to make them seem that much stranger than Europeans? What's wrong with spreading a few facts? In short, what exactly do you think is gained by removing this? Doing that does nothing to help the OP. Isn't replacing ignorance with facts what we're here for? Matt Deres (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's quite clear to me that the OP doesn't want facts. He's posting the question because he gets a weird kind of kick out of doing so. --Viennese Waltz 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "One can only get an answer when a question is properly formulated." That's clearly false; we get poorly-formulated questions all the time on these desks.  One might even say that the majority of our questions are poorly-formulated -- and yet we generally dive right in and attempt to extract meaning from them and attempt to provide answers, no matter how tenuous the question's grip on reality is.  (See this question on the computing desk for but one recent example.)


 * Whatever the problem with the shy, undressed woman question is, it's not that it's not properly formulated. And indeed, there's no guideline (and no precedent) for removing questions that are poorly formulated, or are unanswerable (or, for that matter, that are titillating, or that are being asked by someone who might have asked one similarly titillating question two five years ago).  The question should stay. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. So, what's the answer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It can't be responded to in any meaningful way because it is meaningless in so many ways. What is a non-exhibitionist women? The person posing the question asks, "Has anybody ever conducted any kind of reliable survey of (non-exhibitionist) women?" Do we have anything remotely like a common understanding of what a non-exhibitionist women is? A question can convey an assumption. Are we to address the inbuilt assumptions too? The question is not just unanswerable. It is offensive too. The person posting the question says, "In several pictures from the Holocaust (World War II) undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." Does it make a difference if they were forced to undress or if they accidentally found themselves naked in view of others? Are we to address that factor too—differentiating between accidental nakedness and forced nakedness? The person posting the question says, "…seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." How would the person posting the question know what is "seemingly" the case? When answering this question do we take ambient temperature into consideration too? Assuming this to be a legitimate question, do we somehow address a distinction that would have to be made between covering the body with one's hands to prevent loss of body heat and covering similarly but with the alternative motivation of preserving modesty? The question is offensive because it contains inbuilt assumptions that to a sufficient degree do not make sense that the only proper response is to throw the whole question out. In my opinion one can deduce from the inclusion of a sufficient number of unreasonable variables that the question is lacking in seriousness. This might not be a problem were there not included in the question such serious subject matter as women forced to stand naked outdoors in low temperatures sometimes immediately before being executed. Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was cold, they might have just been trying to stay warm. As you say, the OP comes in with a bunch of questionable assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be that the breasts are more prone to heat loss than the crotch area. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is asking you to ponder any of those imponderables. But if you have a source that discusses it, (regardless of what assumptions to those imponderables the source makes) it would be appropriate to give that reference to the question-asker. If you don't happen to have a reference handy, or know where you might look one up (Besides googling.) all those assumptions you just questioned have no bearing on the discussion.
 * If I ask "Does anyone have any statistics on how long non-professional batteries last?" You don't delete my question on the grounds that "non-professional batteries" is vaguely defined, neither do you delete my question on the grounds that "How long" is completely variable depending on a wide host of assumptions. And you certainly don't come to the talk page and post diatribes about how unanswerable my question is.
 * No, you behave like a mature adult and point me towards articles on the performance and endurance of various off-the-shelf batteries.
 * Or maybe you just ignore my battery question and go about your life. APL (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you recognize a trolling question for what it is, and zap it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But now that it's been asked, I'm actually curious myself. To me, that's a usually a clue that I should AGF. Afterall, if I'd be interested in learning about something, why not this guy?
 * It's an interesting question whose answer could potentially hit on human sexuality, cross cultural values, and nature-vs-nurture if anyone has covered it in depth. APL (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's the answer??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * APL—I think you are advocating open-ended discussion. The Reference desks are not for the suggesting of topics for discussion, but rather for the posing of questions that are sufficiently honed that they are actually potentially answerable. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating open-ended discussion. I've said this at least three times now. I don't care about your opinions on female modesty. I couldn't care in the least.  However, I would be interested in reading a legitimate, scholarly, or at least moderately scientific reference on this subject, if someone has one to offer.
 * If I would be interested in reading such a thing, I refuse to believe that it's unreasonable for someone to have asked for such a thing. APL (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * APL—you say "I don't care about your opinions on female modesty. I couldn't care in the least." But I didn't offer any opinions on female modesty.


 * You go on to say, "…I would be interested in reading a legitimate, scholarly, or at least moderately scientific reference on this subject…" But I think that is a wide open topic for open-ended discussion. I don't think that is a question with good enough focus. I am not saying that an acceptable question has to be terribly focussed, but a degree of focus needs to be a part of an acceptable question posted on any Reference desk. Rambling discussions are not acceptable in my opinion. We can discuss women under a variety of circumstances, but that would be all anecdotal. That sort of wording posted by someone does not in my opinion meet minimally required standards for questions posted on Reference desks. That question could be moved to the individual's Talk page with gentle suggestions about what shortcomings some have felt were found to be marring it. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand the term, an "open discussion" would be you, I, and other ref-desk regulars discussing the topic at hand. (Female modesty.) I was trying to clarify and emphasize that I am not interested in that. APL (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * APL—I didn't offer any "opinions on female modesty". Yet you say: "I don't care about your opinions on female modesty. I couldn't care in the least." Bus stop (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But presumably you would offer opinions on the topic at hand if you were involved in an "open discussion". I was attempting to make clear that I do not want an open discussion, because I have no use for the opinions that would be communicated during that (entirely hypothetical) discussion. APL (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * APL—my objection to the post by Twinpinesmall has nothing to do anyone's opinion on female modesty. You say in this post, "I don't care about your opinions on female modesty. I couldn't care in the least", and in the same post you say, "…I refuse to believe that it's unreasonable for someone to have asked for such a thing." The post by Twinpinesmall I found to be problematic. Holocaust victims cannot be casually cited as examples of female modesty or immodesty—without engendering offense. The usage of examples from the Holocaust on the part of Twinpinesmall can be attributed to insensitivity or intention. In either case I feel an objection should be raised. The use of examples derived from the killings and torture of the Holocaust has to be seen as gratuitous. It is true that examples of female nudity can be found in the photographic record of the Holocaust. But many other examples of the depiction—both photographic and otherwise—of female nudity can also be found. In few of these examples is the nudity forced. The Holocaust examples that I have seen sometimes were immediately prior to execution. At the least it is insensitivity for Twinpinesmall to post, "In several pictures from the Holocaust (World War II) undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud. Re-read the thread. You accused me of wanting an open discussion.  That implies that I am interested in ref-deskers opinions on the topic at hand (female modesty). I am not.  However, since you accused me of wanting an open discussion, I used that sentence that you keep repeatedly harping on to assure you that I do not want you (not you personally, per se, but the collective 'you all') to engage in open discussion about this topic. APL (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is such a photograph. Can it be said that it is a typical example of female modesty or immodesty? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're onto it. On the ref desk page, I stated that the OP's basic premise, if sincere, is seriously flawed. The folks in those holocaust photos are not likely covering their chests from modesty - but from self-protectiveness, hostility, defiance, etc. or reaction to cold temperatures for that matter. Although not sourced in Body language, it's a well-known element of body language. Their folding their arms was not out of modesty, it was a reaction to their perilous situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The question was clearly answerable and should not have been answered. Answering it just was not worth keeping it.
 * When a question's really close to being okay, as this one was, but some of its phrasing might be problematic at the RD, it can be helpful sometimes to move it off the RD onto the OP's talk, and offering there to help reword it. It can be worth the try, if you have the time, and that way everyone's happy, we get a good acceptable question and the desk gets some good answers to it.  WikiDao    &#9775;  23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiDao—I have alerted the individual on their Talk page that I removed their question and also that I initiated this discussion here. Your suggestion of moving the question to their Talk page for reformulation seems like a good one to me, though there may be opinions opposing that, as others seem to feel the question is appropriate as is. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This one seemed well-phrased to provoke a response and get away with it, as it has. There's no need to argue so much about it, though.  Everyone has a valid point, it's a judgement call, it's a common-sense call, so of course there are going to be different opinions, but the important thing we are trying to do is to quickly resolve problems so as to better answer questions at the RD.  Some collegial give-and-take and "well ok if you insist" all around can help make that a better experience for us all.  WikiDao    &#9775;  00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, why do you keep demanding "So what's the answer???"? What point do you think you're making? I honestly am not sure. However, when I say "I would be interested to learn X." and you return with "So what's the answer???", it does not instill me with confidence that you are A) Reading what I write, B) Thinking clearly, and/or C) Acting like a mature adult. APL (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a highly intelligent sort. I just figure if it was answerable, you would have an answer. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, as you both know many questions that seem unanswerable at first turn out to be answerable. Answerability is not the problem with this one.  The problem with this one was the completely unnecessary mention of naked women prisoners in the Holocaust.  No need to mention that to ask the question, so why mention it?  Why keep it in there? We're not censored, we have articles, graphic articles, about women prisoners in the Holocaust, I'm not saying remove all mention of it.  But it was just not decent to leave it unnecessarily on the RD in this case.  That's all I'm saying.  WikiDao    &#9775;  01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you remove the question because you believe it's disingenuous then say so from the get-go. Same thing if you remove it because you are not comfortable with what it is asking. We don't remove questions because they are asking for opinions. We look for referenced notable opinions and point the OP there. (Also this one isn't even asking for opinions). We don't remove questions because they aren't phrased or formatted perfectly. We interpret, ask for clarification etc.
 * And please don't just state that no such studies exist without actually having searched. Unless you happen to be an expert in that field, why should anyone take your intuition for it? I've encountered plenty of questions where some of the first answers are: Sorry, but there are no serious studies on this topic, when, in fact, there were studies, and others found them and linked them. Same here. Anthropological studies have discussed and compared different body taboo zones across cultures, also in the context of which parts naked women hide in which cultures, when surprised, (as an indicator, for example) and how they instinctively cover these parts (examples: navel, rear end) when exposed, while not minding uncovered primary or secondary genitalia. Sex and Sex Worship (1922) around page 294 for a hastily googled example. Agreed, this doesn't directly answer the original question, but it's an approach and a start. ---Sluzzelin  talk  01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the question posed:


 *  What would a shy, undressed woman cover first? 


 * I'm curious as to what women instinctively cover when they find themselves undressed in front of strangers.


 * In certain pictures I've seen displayed in art galleries, the sitter covers her pubes with her hands. In certain others, she covers her breasts with one arm, and her pubes with the other.


 * But outside the art world, things seem different. In several pictures from the Holocaust (World War II) undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes. (This is alluded to, albeit fictionally, in a scene from the movie Schindler's list).


 * Has anybody ever conducted any kind of reliable survey of (non-exhibitionist) women? Would the typical shy woman just want to ensure that her breasts are securely covered, and not really care about who sees her pubes? Pine (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above post refers to someone who does "…not really care about who sees her pubes". Earlier in the post it says "…undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." The post renders itself invalid by that sort of reasoning, in my opinion. Prisoners prior to execution forced to undress are hardly examples of females displaying a manifestation of modesty. It is safe to assume that logic of that sort crossed the mind of the individual posting the above. I don't think we have to be entirely openminded and uncritical of anything anyone chooses to write in the guise of a posted "question". Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your choice of the words "in the guise" once again point to your doubts regarding this question's ingenuousness. That is fine, but just say so directly. That way we don't have to waste time on the substitute argument of answerability. I would, however, like to point you to the concept of the four sons which Deborahjay once pointed out to me. The wicked son too, can receive an educative answer. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This question is neither unanswerable nor unencyclopedic, provided that "Miscellaneous" tends more to humanities than science. Ian Fleming's character Honey Ryder (I think that's the one) is presented in such a situation when she first meets James Bond - he introduces her by saying that she puts one hand "instinctively downward", but with the other she doesn't cover her breasts, but immediately moves to cover her broken nose.  Doubtless there are other sourced literary answers. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice request removed
I have hatted a discussion (and removed the final comment) from a discussion at the Science desk. The original question was reasonable – it asked about how to obtain an inexpensive high-precision scale for weighing very small masses – but in the course of the discussion the original poster revealed that he wanted to be able to precisely divide pills he had been prescribed. We cannot offer advice on how to modify medications for consumption, as dividing pills may have unpredictable or unexpected effects on their absorption in the body. Questions about compounding should be handled by a licensed medical practitioner: a medical doctor or, preferably, a trained pharmacist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Before looking at the post I thought you had made the right decision, however he had said "You will note I am not asking for medical advice (I've already talked to my doctor); I am asking about a scale". He seemed to have gotten permission to do this by his doctor. However we should not advise how to split it. In that case he/she should proceed to consult the doctor once more on how to split it into even porportions. So we should only help him/her find the necessary scale for his needs, not how to split it. General Rommel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only response I removed outright involved a description of how one might go about grinding and diluting the pill contents. Another response I would have removed – the one advising the poster to dissolve the pill in water and then measure out aliquots – if it weren't clear that the OP had already read it.  Several editors (myself included) made attempts to respond to his original question about obtaining an inexpensive high-precision balance; it was only when the OP revealed that he intended to use it with his own medication – and posters began giving poor advice – that I closed the thread.
 * As an aside, I note that it is obvious that the OP's doctor didn't instruct him on how he might divide his medication (and it certainly didn't involve the use of a scale), as the OP was unaware of what pills actually weigh, or that they often contain appreciable quantities of inert binders and other ingredients. (The OP also initially made a calculation error that would have called for a dose a hundred times what he was prescribed.)  Finally, he should be speaking to his pharmacist, because the way a pill is divided (cut, powdered, or dissolved) and subsequently administered may have very serious and unpredictable effects on the uptake of its active ingredient(s).  Now that we know what he intends to use it for, it would no longer be responsible for us to offer further advice to the OP on how to obtain a balance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good removal. Someone arguing that he's not asking for medical advice, is not necessarily the best judge of that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only saying that the additinal information about splitting the pill should be removed. If you wish to comment about this further please do so on my talk page. General Rommel (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He should ask his doctor about the best scale to use and what procedures to follow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a gut feeling that the entire "I want to split my pills" claim is dishonest. Pill splitters are commonly sold in most pharmacies. Splitting a pill with a pill splitter is fine if you don't mind messing up the dosage. I figure that the questioner wants to weight something else, but doesn't want to state specifically what it is. Either way, removal of the question is fine with me. I also think this is a good place to note why pills cannot be split in most cases. Pills are usually made to release over time. A simple way to view it is that there is a medication wrapped in an inert layer, wrapped in another medication layer, wrapped in an inert layer, wrapped in another medication layer, wrapped in another inert layer... and on and on. How many layers there are usually depends on cost (in general, generics give higher doses less often and brandnames give smaller doses more often). If you split the pill, the entire half-pill dissolves right away and the extended release is ruined. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that several of us share your suspicions about the question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that splitting pills rises to the level of "compounding pharmaceuticals". But he's never going to find a $100 balance that weighs accurately to 0.01 mg, so there's little point arguing.  Besides, it would be a royal pain - even 0.1 mg varies way too much depending on the breeze (even in a covered analytical balance) and static electricity on weighing paper, etc.  I'm sure he'll figure something to do with a solution eventually. Wnt (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really hope he doesn't figure it out on his own, actually. The kinetics (and, for that matter, the site) of uptake and the bioavailability for a pill cut in quarters can be quite different from those of a pill finely ground, or a pill dissolved, or a pill dissolved and precipitated/recrystallized. The suggestion in the thread to dissolve the pill in liquid and divide the volume is potentially quite dangerous.  The Ref Desk's armchair chemists can be excused for not thinking of this stuff, but a pharmacist would be aware of the pitfalls. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote he gave suggests a pill which is not a time release, which is sold in pills that are meant to be broken in two, or as a solution, or as a self-dissolving tablet. He says he is already experiencing side effects from 30% variations in dosage from breaking pills manually.  I don't think that the person giving him that suggestion did any wrong by giving him the idea to consider. Wnt (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the more reason he should see his doctor rather than some anonymous folks on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even among pills that can safely be broken in half (or smaller fractions) for administration, there can be very good reasons not to predissolve them in water (or other liquids) without consulting a pharmacist. The drug may not be stable in water for extended periods.  It may partially precipitate on the walls of the container where it is stored, altering the dose.  It may be oxidized or otherwise chemically modified through exposure to air and light; it's aqueous form may be much more sensitive to this sort of exposure.  The drug may be much more rapidly absorbed through the oral mucosa than it would have been through the stomach and GI tract.  The drug may, for that matter, be harmful to the oral mucosa (or teeth) at high concentrations.  While a pharmacist will be familiar with these issues and be able to make informed recommendations, a non-pharmacist Ref Desker will not.  The fact that you can't see why the person offering that suggestion did any wrong is exactly why we don't allow Ref Desk volunteers to give medical advice.  People who lack formal, professional training don't know what they don't know.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, to a certain extent, this can apply to a lot of questions, but we don't make a big fuss about our dilettantism in fields that don't directly interfere with real life situations of a person's health. We don't wish to do harm. We've come to agree that potential harm to life and limb of OPs or their loved ones (including pets, e.g.) is one of the things we most desire to avoid and prevent. We've also come to agree that we'd rather err on the side of caution here. I'm not entirely comfortable with Ten and Steve's rather nifty suggestions (below) of justification as to why it's ok to answer real-life medical questions custom-tailored to an abstract, seemingly innocuous format, thus evading our wish not to do harm. I think these justifications do succeed in clearly putting the responsibility and accountability with the querent, but I'd prefer not to potentially harm them either. I've witnessed people checking the Mayo Clinic's symptom-checker-database-diagnosis-thingy or whatever and receiving false diagnoses. I wish we could exclude disguised requests for real-life medical advice as well, but we cannot. That doesn't mean we should allow those who ask honestly to get harmed or freaked out or just generally advised without examination, qualification, accountability, or even a name. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think there is a consensus that if someone asks a question that clearly violates our prohibitions on medical advice, we won't answer it if they just rephrase and re-ask; we also expect and permit our volunteers to use common sense to reject questions which are disguised requests for medical advice in thinly-veiled hypothetical terms. It was not my intent (nor probably was it Steve's, though you should ask him) to suggest that as soon as a question is couched in abstract terms that we can shut off our brains and ethical senses, but only to indicate that unless we have reason to believe otherwise we should take querents' requests for information (not advice) at face value.  In other words – as in all things on Wikipedia – we should assume honesty and good faith unless and until we have cause not to.  Note that this assumption doesn't compel us to also believe that all participants are equally competent nor that they are fully familiar with our policies and practices.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If giving knowledge is such an evil thing (whenever the participant actually needs help that is) why edit Wikipedia at all?  People on any forum on the Internet would chime in with suggestions, and none of them suffer from such "ethics".  Physicians rail against the availability of misinformation on the Internet, but their interest appears strictly pecuniary; they don't seem particularly energetic about getting free, accurate information onto the Internet beyond the normal efforts of individual sites to acquire readership.  I am certain that the responder's ethical duty is fulfilled simply by noting the lack of qualifications.  After that, it is only a good thing to provide leads that can help questioners acquire further information.
 * Let's put it this way. Suppose some fascist, censorial government (probably yours or mine) forced all Internet questioners to submit to biometric scans before logging in, and transmitted their data in the IPv6 protocol to all sites they access.  Suppose Wikipedia is offered free access to the Universal Health Insurance Denial Database so that it would be allowed to submit the names of every article a reader requests, and get a yes-or-no answer about whether it is related to his medical conditions.  (Additionally, those branded psychiatrically could be denied access to information about explosives, guns, nasty thoughts, horror movies etc.)  Would you say that it was Wikipedia's ethical duty to participate in the scheme? Wnt (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no valid way for any wikipedia editor to provide any "knowledge" to a questioner as to what his medical condition might be. Only a personal visit to a physician can provide that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "If giving knowledge is such an evil thing..." &mdash; seriously? If you're going to either misunderstand or misrepresent what I'm saying to that extent, there's no point in discussing this with you.  If you have any comments or concerns that actually relate to the current situation rather than to an imagined dystopia, perhaps you should raise them.  In the meantime, we're trying to prevent internet amateurs from giving dangerously inaccurate advice to people who should be asking their pharmacists or doctors questions about how to take their prescription medication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no philosophy to explain why giving information on these particular subjects is supposed to be wrong. Nor do I believe that there is any empirical reason to believe it is wrong.  The people you exclude will end up at Erowid if they're lucky, Yahoo Answers if they're not.  I am unconvinced. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Name one editor here who is qualified to diagnose an OP's condition and treatment based solely on some words the OP wrote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This started out as a conversation about how to divide a pill into four pieces. I think some editors here successfully suggested ways in which that could be done.  If you want to insist that that is "diagnosis and treatment" then I think the editors are qualified to give it.  But so far as I'm concerned it is not diagnosis or treatment so long as we disclaim that it is not certified to be that. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And so far as I'm concerned it IS diagnosis or treatment, regardless of any alleged "disclaimer". You don't know anything about the types of pills he's allegedly wanting to split, and has been pointed out, there can be consequences. He needs to talk to his doctor and/or his pharmacist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually he made the drug quite clear; but it doesn't matter: giving him ideas gives him options to explore. We actually have an article pill splitting, which we provide even to sick people, and I should note that it makes clear that physician-sanctioned pill splitting is none too accurate either. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the Hell would it matter if someone has an entire philosophy worked out? That is so irrelevant that I almost expect Ayn Rand to pop up. The only people who are able to offer a safe and accurate answer to the question will not do so, because having all the knowledge and understanding involved also means understanding that there is no safe and accurate way to answer this question in this setting. The only people who are going to answer this question are those who are so dangerously and wildly misinformed as to think they can answer it safely and accurately in this setting, and so cannot offer an accurate and safe answer. It isn't a matter of people preventing a good answer to this question being posted, it is accepting that a good answer will never be posted to this question, only dangerous and misleading crap from people who ought to know by now how much they don't understand. 86.164.73.72 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that few of the Science Refdesk questions actually get a complete answer. We simply hope that a partial answer sets a questioner in the right direction, or serves as a base for future answerers.  We answer a question - we specifically deny that it is accurate and safe for medical purposes, both in the general disclaimer, and by having a policy against giving medical advice.  That doesn't mean we can't give medical answers.  I'm sorry, but while I believe that there's a philosophy to support free inquiry, I don't believe that there is any vast science behind pill splitting.  A few basic caveats apply, but that's all. Wnt (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Giving Advice on Clearly Illegal Acts
There is something I am a little bit unclear on. Why is it that we police ourselves into not giving legal, medical or even veterinary advice, but we seem to be willing to look the other way on giving advice on how to evade laws? I understand that what is illegal in one place may not be illegal in another, but for situations where it is clear that an OP is asking for advice in order to break or evade a law, why do we look the other way on that?
 * For example, the questions about "Which parts/cities of China or Taiwan will have the lowest cost of living?" and "finance question" on the Humanities desk. I mean the second question was mine and I wasn't serious when I asked it, but where do we draw the line?  If someone asked us what the best way to spread Ebola, wouldn't we want to remove that question?  Or a question on how to burgle their local bank?  Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions that are clearly requests for information on how to perform some kind of illegal activity, are not appropriate and should be treated the same (or more harshly) than questions about medical. The only medical advice we can safely give is, "Go see a doctor." The only legal advice we can give besides "See a lawyer" would be "Don't break the law." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * G Meister, you seem to think that asking inappropriate questions is OK as long as you're not serious. I doubt you'd find any consensus to that effect. Humour is one of the most vexed issues on the internet, and I think your question about hiding your income pushed the envelope right over the edge.  It's hard to take seriously your earlier protestations about conspiracy to commit fraud when you immediately treat it as a joke.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  20:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what humor looks like because I did not write that question to in any way be satirical. Instead, I did it to demonstrate that we obviously have an issue that we do not address.  We specify that we will not answer questions about medical advice, but we say nothing about answering questions about how to commit crime.  I think it is an important point and wished to give an example.  If you want to remove my question, I would have no problem with that, rather I would welcome it.  I just want to see there not be a double standard (for the ref desk, not the US senators who got mentioned).  Googlemeister (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm not sure how I would have reacted to your question about cheating on taxes, if I had not already seen the discussion about it. It looks somewhat satirical, simply because it's April 1 and because you're a well-known editor. The most obvious thing in that case is to give appropriately satirical responses. But if it were not April 1 and/or not a recognizable user, it might be a totally dumb but "sincere" question; and I don't think anyone with an ounce of scruples would give serious advice on how to evade the tax laws. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of things are illegal in some jurisdiction or another. Lots if different cultures consider different things immoral.  If you don't like a certain question, Don't Answer It.  It's as simple as that.  We don't need to be lecturing our questioners about the morality or legality of their situation (dispensing advice on the legality is explicitly prohibited). Buddy431 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to do with "liking" a question or not. It has to do with ethics, which is why we don't answer medical or legal questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any jurisdiction where cheating on your taxes is not illegal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's part of it, but it's also about not exposing Wikimedia Foundation to any kind of legal action, from having given out what purports to be medical/legal advice which we're not qualified to provide, but which some user could take seriously and maybe come to sticky end. It's about risk minimisation, and it's a very sensible precaution.
 * I agree with Googlemeister that, if a certain action is clearly illegal in the mind of the OP, such as hiding income from the tax authorities (because otherwise why would they be wanting to obscure it in the first place?), we should not aid and abet the OP. Aside from obvious cases like murder, theft and rape, we're not competent to know, generally speaking, in which specific jurisdictions Action X is legal and in which ones it's not.  If the OP thinks it's illegal, that's all we need to know: we do not help them.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And don't rule out the possibility that someone might "plant" such a question, just to see if they can trick wikipedia editors into saying something that could result in harm to the WMF. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you aren't confounding illegality with immorality as if they were one and the same. (I expect you probably aren't. Just saying. Carry on.) 81.131.25.72 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Archives: 1 2 3 4 In finding these, I ended up having to read some of the stuff from 2006 :( I hope we never return to that. 86.164.73.72 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, basic things like robbery and murder are going to be illegal everywhere. As some of those arguments noted, some things are legal in some places and not in others. I'm thinking of a hypothetical where someone says, "I'm from the Republic of Weedistan, where it's legal to grow marijuana. What fertilizer should I use?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We went through all this about six months ago. I remember I finally got the censorship supporters to admit that there is no legal basis to ban questions about medical and legal advice, and that this is strictly some "ethical" principle they pulled out of their sweet Fanny Adams.  At least the idea of coming up with further censorship criteria was discussed and dismissed.  Does anyone really believe that posters should have to say where they live, what medical condition they have and submit a photocopy of their physician's recommendation before we tell them how to grow medical marijuana?  If so, then shouldn't the Wikipedia articles that offer any useful information on such topics likewise be encrypted and distributed only under copyright to those who have paid a fee and acquired a government license to read them?  In which case, why contribute to Wikipedia at all?  It would make a lot more sense to distribute the restricted information under MY copyright under MY conditions, period.  Bottom line: if you think information is bad, don't edit Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jack notes above, an overriding issue is "not exposing Wikimedia Foundation to any kind of legal action". That should trump anyone's urgent need to respond to questionable questions. And I say again, as many have said before, there is NO ONE among wikipedia's editors who is qualified to provide a medical diagnosis to a poster. The ONLY VALID ADVICE to give is "See a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about medical advice Bugs? That thread's above.  The Wikimedia foundation is in no danger of a successful lawsuit because of something stupid anyone says here.  That's why we have our disclaimer.  Our medical and legal advice rules are for purely ethical reasons.  We can debate them until the cows come home, but we should at least get the facts straight before we distort them to our causes. Buddy431 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you lecturing me or Jack? I was merely quoting him. And just because we have a disclaimer doesn't mean a bloody thing. If someone is actually harmed by something in wikipedia, there will be hell to pay, one way or another. It's better to play it safe. No medical advice, no legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wnt seems to be re-imagining history. We've generally understood (with some exceptions) for years that Wikipedia is probably not facing serious legal liability for bad medical or legal advice that's handed out at these Desks.  (Check the history of User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?, for statements to that effect going back to at least 2007.)  We are far more vulnerable to the harsh judgement of the court of public opinion.  Even in the absence of legal liability, the Ref Desk has the potential to embarrass the entire project if it is seen as acting irresponsibly.  If we grant the (entirely implausible) assumption that Ref Desk volunteers have no ethical sensibility whatsoever, we still need to realize that it takes just one ugly incident on one slow news day to shut us down because we're detracting from the core mission of this project: building an encyclopedia.  If you think our current guidelines are tough, wait until we get our own version of WP:BLP handed down from on high. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should I be intimidated into accepting boundless new realms of censorship based on a hypothetical betrayal from a project that was founded with "NOTCENSORED" as a fundamental pillar? If a person wants a project where "anything that is X, Y, Z, or otherwise deemed offensive by the management can be removed at any time" he can edit any page on the Internet.  This is supposed to be a site with a higher mission than that. Wnt (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Refusing to aid and abet illegal activities is not "censorship". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one's asking you to do anything. In fact, some may rather prefer you didn't. Wnt (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response makes no sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To refrain from doing something because one feels that would abet activity one would rather not abet is a free personal decision. To advise others not to do things they feel would abet activity they would rather not abet is also a free personal decision. Many can agree on strong ethical, legal and practical reasons for both those decisions. BUT to place a barrier to others intended to take from them their right to make those decisions is pre-emptive censorship. The legal and practical arguments for that censorship have merit when one is, in effect, operating as a guest representative of an ideal but vulnerable host organization the WF. I see no reason a reference desk may not point a reader to any article that now exists in mainspace. BUT alleged justifications on "ethics" have become hypocritical when nobody here but I criticized information that was given at a ref. desk. on means to increase the blast of a nuclear weapon. That increase adds directly to how many men, women and children the explosion will kill and maime. Jokes to self: I claim the record for number of times I used the rare word "abet". I did not mention dear little puppy dogs with waggy tails and big innocent eyes who would also be slaughtered. Ooops. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians have no business helping others break the law. Is that sufficiently clear? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rosa Parks and any survivor of Salt Satyagraha who happens to be a wikipedian receive my full though necessarily belated support for their illegal acts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparing civil disobedience to cheating on taxes is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghandi's Salt Satyagraha was both of them! See History of the British salt tax in India. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Thoreau... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the immigration status of a foreigner in the U.S., I can scarcely think of something harder to figure out than the legality of than a tax dodge. The poor do it in their own name, can't fight back, and go to jail, while the wealthy have an accountant do it, who can argue the case to the Supreme Court and have the government glad to settle for a few pennies on the dollar.  The adjudication is never consistent - people get hit up all the time for doing what everyone else does.  You might want a different example.  But in any case, it's clear we don't agree, and that your efforts to make your opinion policy have failed due to a strong lack of consensus. Wnt (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Boston Tea Party was highly offensive to George III of the United Kingdom. So what? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And evading taxes is offensive to everyone who does pay them... and illegal file sharing is offensive to the people who make their living out of the movie industry and music industry, which includes, by the way, people like electricians and caterers who aren't in fact whiny millionaires. Helping people break the law is wrong.  These questions aren't asking about civil disobedience; they are asking about theft.  The Britannica doesn't give advice on lockpicking; why should we detail it?  We can describe what it does, but we don't need to give the procedure.  Wikipedia isn't a how-to manual, it's an information resource.  I someone wants to know about these criminal acts, link to the article.  Let's not tell them how.  We deal with this at the Public Library as well, and that's what we do, if we don't actually call the cops. Aaronite (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia has quite extensive and detailed articles on lock picking and safe-cracking, which can be legitimate activies - see locksport. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And file sharing... when is that illegal? Napster they say, but not YouTube.  Properly controlling your browsing of that site with Video DownloadHelper, you can save almost any music video you can remember the name of, apparently legally.  We do not save the electrician or the caterer by preventing a kid from saving a few songs to his hard drive.  We can save them by providing the information to teach the public that copyright isn't working, that it won't work, that the U.S. has staked a large part of its economy on something that relies in the perfect compliance of other nations that will never comply, and that it is time to abandon copyright and look for a viable tax-like alternative of individually directed and funding organization facilitated contributions of a designated fraction of income toward content creators that does not rely on artificial scarcity.  Security through obscurity (or security by means of tying a blindfold over your eyes) simply doesn't work. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The scarcity of talented live performing artists is however real not artificial. I disagree with your call for abandoning copyright because there is much wrong with your tax-like alternative. Who shall choose which individuals get the publically collected funds, and on what basis? Here are alternatives that have been tried: *The central state - example: the Bolshoi theater. Result:lavish productions for which oligarchs can safely claim credit and a strict artistic milieu accessible to only an elite sponsored few. *An organisation of artists - the movie studio United Artists started in 1919 with that idea but its idealistic scheme, described as "The inmates are taking over the asylum" collapsed almost immediately under the weight of commercial realities, egotistical interests and an inability to innovate (movies with sound? Nah, we don't need them. We have faces!). As copyright enforcement becomes less and less effective, society needs to turn to other proven ways of encouraging new performing artists. I see these options that can coexist with the copyright system. *Private patronage. Give tax relief to anybody who supports any performer who is not bound by a commercial contract. *Busker model. This hasn't changed in principle since the troubadours of antiquity and was the commonest means of employment for entertainers before the advent of recording. In 2007 a British rock group put their album out for free download from the Internet where customers could order for whatever price they saw fit. Is this an unknown band seeking publicity? No, the band had already sold more than 25 million copies of 6 different albums. They just wanted an escape from their disillusionment at the dumbed-down commercial expectations of "MTV eye-candy lifestyle" of their copyright-holding record label. This other example of a sharable music file is legal, moral and non-fattening to any copyright holding conglomerate. Post expanded. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Line X of your income tax is X% of your total tax. On the top of page 2 you break down that money by spending area: I write down 50% science, 25% charity, 25% arts.  In the science column I write down 30% beside the number of NIH written in the tax book, 20% for HHMI, 15% for an algal biofuels research initiative, etc.  Likewise in the arts column I could write down the names of associations that fund particular sorts of music, museums, video game makers etc.  Underneath I can itemize $5 to go to specific products I enjoyed listed by UPC number, which is taken out before the percentages are calculated.  True, these organizations do need to be created or greatly expanded; this is because there has not been a central funding mechanism as there is for science. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Two things here. First of all, this specific instance seems like a pretty blatant WP:POINT violation by Googlemeister. Secondly, to the larger issue; we obviously shouldn't give people things like hacking instructions or other things that are universally illegal (accessing child porn, smuggling, etc.). However, the way this question was asked, it could mean two things, as Blueboar pointed out in the relevant section. I don't think those types of questions are such a problem, because there are plenty of valid answers; just because someone can respond with instructions on doing something illegal doesn't always mean there aren't other, perfectly good responses. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you mention them, Wikipedia has articles about Hacking (which is not universally illegal), Child pornography, Smuggling, etc. Their contents are strictly scrutinized. Ref. desk responders must always be allowed to point questioners to these articles and should do this and no more when the questioner's interest seems less than saintly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, of course that's fine; what I meant (if I'm not clear) is that we shouldn't be giving people advice on how to obtain these things. If someone asks where to get child porn, we should obviously not answer something like that (and by the way, I was thinking cyber attacks, not hacking instructions; it was late at night where I was).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:NOTGUIDE says a Wikipedia article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Applying similar rules to Ref. Desk responses is a perennial challenge because instructions are often requested and given in good faith. It would save a lot of discussion if the Ref. Desks were declared a genuine Ignore all rules zone. (e.g. What's the best way to rob a bank? Study the Wikipedia article Bank robbery. Take good time to survey and compare several banks getting to know how what security they have, when they are usually crowded and when most cash is moved. It's a good idea to have a trusted getaway driver waiting for you while you are in the bank, and have backup plans for every step that may go wrong. Important: police and bank guards are best avoided because they will try to identify, stop and arrest you. Since a prison term will be the result, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time.") Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are myriad websites where someone could get that sort of information; I suppose a compromise would just be to link to someplace describing how to rob a bank. That in and of itself isn't illegal; I've had philosophy professors who've used a plan to rob a bank to demonstrate some point in Platonic logic.  However, there are some things that are illegal (examples I gave above), and that's what we need to watch out for.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's reasonable to link the the relevant article, but just remember that giving instructions or advice to commit an illegal act is itself illegal in some jurisdictions, so be careful. I still things it's wrong in principle, but I can't stop you, but if you don't think it is (you in the broader case, not any individual), I can'r stop you, though I will still complain about it.  I still don't think it should be done. Aaronite (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When it seems so harmless to describe information about robbing banks as Cuddlyable does above, why get worked up about it? And if child pornography is so readily available that people can just ask at the refdesk and find out about it, then how effective is that law anyway?  (And it is - an endless debate at Talk:Tor (anonymity network) is that if you link to any site at all, it links to some site that links to a site etc that gets you to the stuff) The police spend a fortune on "cyber-crimes", running in people who aren't even pedophiles, and in the meanwhile there is reportedly an absolutely insane number of child prostitutes out on the street in the U.S.  All that such conversations break is the illusion that crime can be stopped by not talking about it. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Magazines, books and movies tell more than anyone needs to know about bank robbing but they give unreliable sensationalised information which it is in everybody's interest to rectify. I won't grab the other nettle because there may be mothers reading. Anyway I don't know any of these people or what they are talking about. Is it true they have Internet on computers now? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting stupid. "Since we can't stop anything ourselves, then anything goes since they'll get it somewhere else."  That's crap and you know it.  I'm done with this.  Don't bother replying to me. Aaronite (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a project where people donate their time and effort so that people all over the world can get information about any topic for free. Preventing the wrong people from getting the wrong information is simply not part of our notion of law enforcement.  Certainly we know how to do many truly terrible things that we don't do; so why should we assume the worst from others? Wnt (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Aaronite's peevishness would be understandable if we were in Aaronite's words giving instructions or advice to commit an illegal act as in "Go grab a baby and eat it", but not when we give information about an act that may be illegal as in "See the Wikipedia article on Cannibalism which may be justifiable in extreme situations". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason we do not give medical and legal advice is because as a rule these sorts of things can lead to someone getting quite hurt one way or another if not given by a professional. We similarly should probably not give people advice as to how to make home made rockets or how to mix acids in their sink without huge, huge disclaimers. I would probably find illegality as a rule not to be something worth censoring. As many have noted, jurisdiction matters, and in some cases resisting civil laws is probably the moral point of view. (There are strong arguments about that regarding cheating taxes as well, to use our example.) There are also many "illegal" questions whose answers are quite important — e.g. "how would a terrorist make a nuclear weapon?" is one that is often discussed in universities and high schools as a way of raising awareness to modern-day threats. So I think we should use our judgment. I don't think we want to aid any serious crimes. It's not what we're about on here, as a whole. But I don't think we need to try and work out Byzantine regulations. It's a waste of time. We have a few sensible "blanket" regulations (e.g. medicine and legal) that take care of a huge number of problematic queries, but I don't think "no illegal acts" is a sensible one. Play it by ear, trust our judgment, go about it in good faith, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One additional thought: one way we might consider how serious a given set of advice can be is how many causal steps it is between giving the advice and acting on it. Something that can be done somewhat instantly is more problematic than things which require considerable more effort. Telling someone how you might go about robbing a bank puts the role of advice quite far away from the actual activity of robbing a bank. Telling someone how to download a torrent file does not. Telling someone how to make a nuclear weapon is far, far from the actual deed itself. Telling someone to not go to a doctor ("it's probably just gas") is fairly close to the deed. Telling someone something is legal when it isn't, is also pretty close to the deed. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea to estimate a responder's "degree of complicity" in something done illegally. One thinks of Hitler's architect Albert Speer whose submission on trial was that he knew nothing of the Holocaust but felt responsible because he should have known. However the estimation founders when the requested information has dual uses. The example of torrent data transfer has legitimate uses by legitimate bodies. Apropos nuclear weapon devices there is classified information that goes beyond how to make a Little Boy or a Fat Man, and it would be irresponsibly naïve to suppose that terrorists don't read Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it founders in those cases. I think we'd be happy to help someone set up a torrent for distributing something they own the copyright on, or downloading a linux distribution. I'm sure we'd be happy to explain how torrents work and how you can set up your computer to use them. Where we'd (most of us) draw the line is when someone makes quite explicit that they are using the technology for illegal ends. As for nuclear weapons, I still think that there are few situations where anyone on Wikipedia would need to feel very culpable. If somebody gets to the stage where Wikipedia is useful information for making their actual nuclear weapon, that means that quite a very long chain of other people, agencies, and international arrangements have screwed up. If that's the case, that final hurdle of a few bits of informational data are really not going to make a whole lot of difference. If a terrorist secures 50 kg of HEU, I don't think the presence or non-presence of info on here is going to make that final bit of difference between a catastrophe or not. But in any case, I'm just proposing this as a heuristic, a place to start analysis, not a conclusion or guideline. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To use whether or not the querent is explicit about their illegal intention as the threshold for answering is only a precaution for Plausible deniability which is a legal concept. Wikipedia already contains information and references that are supportive of WMD development (I am deliberately vague) because of the way it has been collected and edited. It's traditional security to put the onus on an inquirer to prove their need to know such data. My point is that there are now a LOT of bits of information in one place with no lock on the door. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced of the actual threat of such information. It is easy to say "knowledge is power" but it's another thing to actually make it work — the practical and even theoretical barriers are quite large (Wikipedia has great diagrams of internal combustion engines as well, but I don't see very many people who are capable of making their own automobiles). In any event, the reference desk is a small subset of that particular question. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many editors seem to rush to assume people posting questions are trying to violate the law: this happens with discussions of torrents, copying disks, etc, where the scope for wrongdoing is obvious. Googlemeister was originally upset by someone who as far as I understood was considering getting a student loan and moving overseas, which may be illegal in some jurisdictions but is not obviously a clear-cut crime everywhere (defaulting on loans in general is a civil matter), and in any case Googlemeister offered no evidence as to its illegality. But this is not just about the specific case.  Rushing to judgment in any of these cases violates the "assume good faith" requirement for answering Ref Desk questions, and reference deskers are seldom in possession of all the facts (particularly when many questions are written in poor English).
 * People must accept that questions are asked on topics they consider immoral, and while Ref Deskers can always refuse to participate, what matters for the administration of Wikipedia is the risk of legal action or other damage to Wikipedia, weighed against the basic function of Wikipedia which is to provide information. People may also pose request for factual information as a hypothetical question ("If I was a mad scientist, how would I...") and this requires additional care.  Questioners may also include information which is irrelevant to the actual question but which upsets some people, and this should be disregarded in answering the question.  Exaggerated claims of illegality should not be used to get rid of people you personally object to (the attitude to people asking where to get something for free seems to be "damn kids, always wanting something for nothing, rant, rant, obviously up to no good, delete the question").
 * I think most people here would agree that we should delete any answer posted that contains direct information on how to do something that is itself illegal (e.g. links to file-sharing, or useful instructions on how to rob a bank, but this would not include telling people where to retire with their money). But if an answer is useful to someone not planning to break the law (and remember that ref desk answers are not just for the questioner, but are archived for everyone), it should normally stay (though you may like to weigh up large usefulness to criminals against small usefulness to the law-abiding).  This can be extended to pro-actively deleting questions which are highly likely to encourage illegal answers (on the above definition), but this should be a last resort, not just personal moral disapproval or vague suspicion.  Finally, if you have moral objections to a question, post on the Talk page or preferably in your own blog, not on the Ref Desk. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

92.15.8.14
The user has done nothing but ridicule Americans, while making no attempt to answer the OP's questions, so I'm in process of deleting his garbage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't do that again, please, Bugs. Your post to his talk page was as rude as his one snide remark.  If you can't handle an editor you whom you think is a troll without getting bent out of shape yourself, then leave it for someone else to deal with.
 * I also don't understand why you decided that you should make this removal, for instance. Aside from pointing out (correctly) that your response seemed to address a twentieth-century U.S. burial rather than the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English burials the original poster was asking about, I don't see anything offensive there.  Criticizing your post isn't a personal attack, though dismissing everything another editor has said as 'garbage' may be.
 * As a gesture of good faith, save for the post that mentioned Americans you should probably put back the comments that you deleted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to restore his negative and ignorant comments, feel free. But rest assured that if you do so, then (1) I will rebut those comments; and (2) I will remember this the next time someone here yells at me for posting comments that are more useful than the ones the IP posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) is exactly what you should have done in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There was a lengthy discussion here recently about not getting into arguments in front of the OP. Another option I thought of was to simply delete that junk and not mention it here, but I thought it better to report it. If you really think the guy's comments were useful, you can put them back. I'm certainly not going to, since I thought they were junk and I still do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting into disputes about factual information relating to the OP's question is both condoned and encouraged. Getting into arguments about workings of the Ref Desk itself (e.g. user behavior) is generally not. If you think the poster is factually incorrect, please feel free to argue your point, obviously. Honestly I don't see what's gotten you so worked up here. He thinks you're wrong. That's not an extremely novel assertion. Everyone thinks we're all wrong sometimes; sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having everything that one could want or wish sometimes does bad things to people. "Indeed, it sometimes makes them naughty, as it has made the people in America." - Charles Kingsley, The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why any of these posts were deleted. The removals were completely inappropriate.
 * If it was against policy to point out when BBugs's reply didn't answer the question as-written, we'd all be blocked. APL (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I say something that's not correct, would it kill you to simply say, "That's not correct"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but it might. Being a sarcastic jerk is pretty fundamental to my nature. It isn't healthy to hold it in.
 * However, Let me try again in a more serious tone : The posts you've removed appear to me to be completely appropriate and correct criticisms of ref-desk answers. Other users commonly make similar criticisms of posts made both by you and by others. I doubt you would have removed them if they had come from a named user. APL (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed them specifically because (1) they were attacks on others, in front of the OP, which are not to be done, as per recent discussions here; and (2) they made no attempt to answer the question posed by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering if this constitutes tacit consent for us to quietly delete BBugs' off-topic or incendiary contributions. &mdash; Lomn 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as you report such deletions here, as I did. And I shall do likewise with others' incendiary comments. Like the IP's comments in this case. However, as I've said about eleventeen times now, if you think the IP's comments add value to the discussion, go ahead and put them back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the edits you made were edit warring to remove comments that were critical but not 'incendiary':, , , . This post by 92.15, while a bit snarky, is not a justification for damnatio memoriae&mdash;certainly not without a prior discussion here.  Additional careless wholesale removal of another editor's posts may lead to blocks or other editing restrictions for you, Baseball Bugs.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not incendiary to you, because it wasn't you that was being attacked. If you want to add back the IP's highly useful and informative comments, go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs, I believe I've suggested this before, so please forgive me for repeating myself. It's clear that your interactions with IP editors are highly-charged.  I think it would be best if you avoided direct interaction with IP editors at the desks.*  No removals, no name-calling, no snide asides, that sort of thing.  Similarly, I think it would be useful for you to stop trying to re-cast these recurring issues onto IP editors (as you've done "about eleventeen times now", including at least twice in this particular indent cycle).  As with IP edits that you don't like, simply ignoring critical comments (including this one) would be preferable to recurrent finger-pointing.
 * *Yes, I think it's fine if you continue your work removing long-term banned users and the like. Your judgment is such that I don't see the need to try to wrangle every last iota of possibility into the above. &mdash; Lomn 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, the drive-bys are afforded more respect than those who actually try to answer questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your poor behavior, and no one else's, is responsible for the respect others accord you. It's not a zero-sum game -- I'm more than capable of finding both parties' behavior lacking in these Bugs-vs-the-IP spats (and I often do).  The core problem is that it's repeatedly Bugs-vs-the-IP (and that the IP's behavior is rarely the worse of the two).  &mdash; Lomn 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, the clique pulls together and looks for a scapegoat. Next week it'll be Cuddly, then somebody else. Humbug. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs ... you're part of the 'clique'. We're just asking that you to abuse the outsiders less. (Don't believe me? Post as an anon for a few weeks.) APL (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate comment for an editor to make, lecturing the OP about capitalizations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh. Since it's a follow-up to a SOFIXIT/edit-the-encyclopedia suggestion, there's a reasonable case for that sort of editorial advice.  I'd find it less appropriate if it were a one-off criticism without that context. &mdash; Lomn 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a particular ref desk denizen who upper-cases every word. The guy's been asked about it but he won't change. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The guy's been asked about it but he won't change" - words we can all usefully meditate on. Isn't that right, Bugs?  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A temporary ban for Baseball Bugs please?
Does anyone agree that Baseball Bugs should be given at least a temporary ban, and be encouraged to join a chat forum instead?

She/He must have more responces on these pages than anyone else. Most, or amost all of the responses do not provide any information relevant to the question, although they might share a 'keyword' in common, and simply divert discussion off at a tangent. I dread getting one of his responses to a question I might ask, as that means subsequent replies will be irrelevant, and recent experience suggests that any comments he does not like will be simply deleted without trace. Note the more to-the-point and relevant replies and mature discussion on the Language or Mathematics boards, where Baseball Bugs seldom goes.

Now, and I understand in the past, he has taken it upon himself to delete responces that, although part of the normal debate regarding what is or isnt true or relevant in answering the question, could therefore be seen as being mildly critical of his replies.

Such shameless and tyranical behaviour described above, with the implication that he is unaware of its immaturity and wrongness or how it reflects on himself, suggests to me that he may be someone who is very young.

I also note that the question I asked here yesterday, asking why my reponces had disapeared, has itself disapeared without trace or comment. Could it be restored please?

I'm keeping a copy of this so that I can re-post it if it gets deleted. Thanks. 92.15.20.189 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, suddenly my question that previously seemed to be deleted has now re-appeared, I don't know why. 92.15.20.189 (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your question (one section above) had never disappeared. We don't ban people here for being chatty; most of us are chatty at times. Instead of banning each other, we try to gently nudge each other back on track, when things get out of hand. Regarding the removals, Bugs has been told, in no unclear terms, not to do this again, and he has been informed that a repitition of removing critical comments like that might actually result in some sort of temporary sanctions. I'm sorry your comments got removed, but I think we can drop this whole issue now. If he removes your comments again, bring it up here. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I get less cross with Bugs' "witty" one-liners than I do with IP editors asking for other editors to be blocked when they haven't even bothered to register themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to register here, and as long as that is our policy, we shouldn't be discriminating based on whether an editor has a registered account or not. People who don't like this policy of allowing unregistered users to edit, can try to change that policy, but the reference desk, in particular, is not the place at all to do that. We get plenty of unregistered querents, and have a number of very helpful unregistered volunteers too. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to deal with unregistered editors when they are new and still learning the ropes, especially on pages like these, but I see a touch of arrogance in someone who has chosen to not fully join the project asking for a very established editor to be banned. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "deal with"? That seems a little high-handed in itself.  As Sluzzelin pointed out, the mere fact that an editor is unregistered says nothing about their longevity with this project.  For all we know, they may have been around for a number of years, rendering sterling service.  Many people edit from work, but some of them are prevented from logging in, so they appear as unregistered.  In any case, registering can mean as little as giving oneself a user name, in which case the rest of us will still know no more about the editor than before they registered.  It's a false distinction that's best avoided.  People have been trying to tell Baseball Bugs that for years, with little success.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding questions disappearing and reappearing, the reference desk pages have been a state of brokenness for me for several weeks, and you may be having the same problem. Often I see a page several days old. Then when I retry later I may see a more up-to-date page. Then later still it goes back to the days-old version. Purging cache has no effect (or, certainly, no lasting effect). I wish someone would fix this. 86.176.214.76 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On occasion, for reasons I have never figured out, Wikimedia's cache and proxy servers treat logged-in users differently than IP/not-logged-in users. A basic introduction to Wikimedia's servers may help explain the complexity involved in serving a page to you.  Wikimedia engineers and developers are making tweaks and technical changes all the time.  Sometimes "glitches" happen, and old caches are delivered.  More details, PHP caching, ..., squid caching, <tt>memcached</tt> caching, database caching, load-balancing, and so on.  Add on top of that - any proxy and cache between Wikimedia and your web-browser (at least three distinct places are suspicious when "mysterious" caching is taking place: at the Tier-1 network, at the ISP, and at your client machine's operating system).  The stock answer is to try Purge.  Unfortunately, the more you learn about enterprise server architecture and cache hierarchy, the more you will understand why Purge doesn't actually guarantee the most up-to-date page version.  Nimur (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been using Wikipedia for many years and I know that occasionally stale pages are presented. This recent problem with the reference desk is a different order of magnitude and has arisen fairly recently. More often than not I get a stale page (sometimes hours old, sometimes days old) and/or a page that is erroneously read-only. 86.160.208.94 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. The desks often display as if they're semi-protected even though they aren't. Yesterday the science desk loaded with the old monobook css for some reason, completely randomly. 82.43.90.38 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism/censoring of mildly critical comments
In my questions "Raised churchyard graves" and "Farmhouse or Hall" I posted replies querying if modern American or contemporary Guatemalan practice really had any bearing on practice in England two or three centuries or more ago, as the American (?) posters seemed to think. There replies were not at all offensive but part of normal debate.

There replies were removed, as were my further brief comments wondering where my replies had gone.

So who or what removed them please? Surely this is at least against etiquette? It rather sinister if one cannot debate the subject.

Reading the comments to those questions, I'm surpised and saddened that most of the commentators seemed oblivious to, or refuse to accept, the idea that contemporary practice in American etc is unlikely to be extrapolatable to England of centuries ago. I tried to make this comment on the page. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, now I've noticed your debate above. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about that, it was just Bugs being over-vigilant. He's a good sort really. You didn't have to bring the whole Atlantic divide into it, by the way: it's just that there's a strong compulsion for a well-meaning answerer to charge in and say something irrelevant that they know about, rather than say nothing. Happens all the time, people trying to make things fit the question that come from the wrong century or the wrong country. You can call it fluff, or froth, or something, and we try to reduce it, but it will always happen, and anyway sometimes it's interesting. No need to suggest that Americans are ignorant about foreign cultures, which is no more true a stereotype than the one that says us Brits have bad teeth (both things seem to me to be very slightly true, but are highly subjective and somewhat forgivable, and don't need mentioning). 81.131.0.64 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the above and below sections have both been closed for comment, let me do so here. If I was mistaken in seeing that something had been deleted when it had not been, then I'm sorry.

I'm disapointed that none of the text below discusses the request/suggestion that Baseball Bugs is given a temporary or longer ban for deleting other peoples responses. The responses were part of the normal discussion of politely querying wether someone's assertion is true or relevant. Not just deleting people's postings, but deleting other people's brief querying of what had happened to their missing postings as well, so that the casual reader could not even tell that something had been deleted. As far as I recall there was another similar request or complaint along these lines that has rolled off the top of the page. His stated reason was that they were anti-American (like McCarthyism), but this is not true. I think the real reason is that he does not like anything that could be interpreted as mild criticism of himself or of his nation, and as I was an unregistered editor, he felt safe in deleting it, 1984-style. I confirm that I have been contributing to Wikipedia for years, and I do not wish to register as I do not want to get involved with personalities, such as this episode.

I know which postings of mine have been deleted. To the casual reader you would never even know I had made them. Has Baseball Bugs been doing this with other people's postings that he does not like also?

The other less significant bad behaviours are 1) making irrelvant postings that divert the discussion away from the subject, and 2) trying to make (unfunny) jokes. I do hope that these pages can be prevented from insidiously descending into a bear-pit where only "bears" want to be, as has been the fate of so many other forums. Thanks 92.28.242.164 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would support a temporary ban, although knowing this editor such a sanction would be unlikely to have any long-term effect on his behaviour. --Viennese Waltz 11:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would have an effect on his behaviour, but even if it did not it would at least give us some relief during the ban. 92.15.19.232 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the "removed a question" below, zapping apparent trolling is not so unusual. Meanwhile, I was advised to be more careful about deletions, and I have taken that advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was not any "apparent trolling". 92.15.19.232 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about that other IP user's comments? Well, to me they looked like trolling. Hence the term "apparent". However, if you think that other user's comments add value to the discussion, then go ahead and add them back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting massive unsummarized deletion
Is there an editor who is both able and willing to revert this massive unsummarized deletion? —Wavelength (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. I'm willing to grant Hanlon's razor as the explanation for this one; looks like some IP editor edited an old version from the history and screwed things up horibly.  I put things back the way they were, and re-added any material that had been added by other editors since this weirdness.  All is well.-- Jayron  32  05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Physiology and common sense
Riddle me this. Someone stated a self-observed fact about his own body and asked for explanation. He got answers, apparently good ones. For some reason he wasn't immediately pilloried and censured as a vile seeker of forbidden medical advice. I would not have thought that possible. Am pleased with the outcome, but puzzled. Are the self-appointed defenders of whatever-it-is-they-defend asleep? –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't a restriction on providing information about anatomy and physiology. As far as I read the question, Wnt was most interested in the mechanics of jaw movements ("the mechanics mystify me").  The best answer pointed out the article on the temporomandibular joint.  This seems perfectly appropriate to me.  If Wnt had asked something like "my jaw suddenly popped out of joint, what should I do?" or "what is causing the jaw pain that I'm having?" that would be different and subject to the usual restrictions on medical advice. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But he did ask (only very slightly paraphrased) "what is causing the restricted jaw movement I'm experiencing?". If the first editor to respond had instead blanked the question and replaced it with "medical question removed -- go see a doctor if you think your failure to move your jaw in certain directions may indicate a medical problem", wouldn't the overwhelming consensus here be that the removal was proper, and that the OP's protestations of mere curiosity was just as "guise" for asking a medical question? –Henning Makholm (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although he stated it in first-person, to me it reads like he's asking a more general question. Also, he's an established editor as opposed to someone coming in from nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition of personal details does raise the legitimate question of whether Wnt was asking an "is this normal" type of question, which would not be appropriate for us to answer, because it would require some type of examination or other evaluation of whether there was truly abnormal jaw movement involved. But I don't get the sense that Wnt thinks his jaw movement is "restricted" in any pathological sense but rather in the sense that any given joint has certain range of motion restrictions. If another editor had removed the question I would have thought it was a little excessive but I probably wouldn't have argued very strongly against it. In general, it probably would have been better phrased to say something like "in my understanding, the human jaw can move front to back and side to side but cannot rotate left to right -- can someone explain the biomechanics of the jaw to me?" --- Medical geneticist (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the usual criterion is not whether the poster himself thinks his observation points to anything pathological, but whether it is logically conceivable at all that his observations could possibly be symptoms of something dangerous, whether or not any real condition they could be symptoms of exists, or is known to anyone on the refdesk. The usual argument is that it doesn't even matter whether what he writes is or is not objectively abnormal, because he might conceivably have a real medical problem with his jaw and just have failed to describe his symptoms clearly enough for them to be discernible from the text he wrote. Therefore, if he were allowed to read on the refdesk that his description sounds normal, he might be deterred from seeing a doctor about the jaw and we could suddenly all wake up to headlines of "Victim Of Gnathal Agnotosis Sought Advice From Wikipedia, Was Told Not To Worry". I don't think much of this line of reasoning, but I sincerely thought it was so entrenched in consensus that it surprises me it's not being used here. I must have misunderstood the boundaries of its application. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it as a question along the same lines as, "Why can't I bend my knee backwards?" which is not just him, but pretty much everybody, unless they've had their knees severely damaged somehow. In any case, Wnt is a frequenter of this page, so he might offer some clarification at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the past, everyone else who asked such questions have been silenced with the argument that even confirming or denying whether it is normal for knees to bend backwards would constitute a medical diagnosis and therefore be verboten ... I'm not complaining that this rule has apparently changed, though. Or was it always the case that "I presume I'm typical" were the magic words that let the speaker get away with asking physiological questions that are off limits to the hoi polloi? –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think Wnt's question is in fact a request for medical advice as opposed to simply "How does the body work?", feel free to argue for its removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of us on here can tell the difference. Can you really not, or are you just trying to make a point? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were going to break WP:POINT, I would have removed the thread and instructed Wnt to see a medical professional, rather than start a talk page thread. I really don't see what separates this from many other cases where a poster was also (clearly, to me) just trying to satisfy idle curiosity, but was told to go bother a doctor instead. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to box the other editors' comments and advise the OP to see a doctor. ("Bother" does not compute. Doctors get paid for their services.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The question was clearly an anatomy question. If you replace "me" and "I" with "You" or "Someone" you still have the same question. APL (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes questions have been closed as medical, even though the questioner believed they were asking a generic question about a normal condition, and just trying to establish biological facts - I remember this happening at least once. Possibly it was a question a while back about cold wrists which was framed in this way. Card Zero  (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think reference deskers agree that they share a very basic knowledge of what is medically normal, and are willing to make assertions to questioners about it, too, provided the assertions don't appear even slightly controversial (or especially knowledgeable) to anyone. Card Zero  (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)