Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 91

Legal advice - somewhere to direct people?
I just read this article about a site offering free legal advice by actual lawyers. Although I'm not really comfortable promoting another site, and the article doesn't exactly give it a glowing review, I wonder if it could be helpful to us when someone has a reasonably 'easy' legal question to have somewhere to send them, rather than simply having to give the 'no legal advice' line each time. Please note, I agree that the RefDesk is not the place to give legal advice, I just wonder if this site might help us to help more people. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure we promote "Google" a lot here, I agree that I'm not comfortable promoting a service like that without personal experience with its quality.
 * I wish I knew a good site that somehow helped you look up laws. So we could help people help themselves. It'd be nice to say "We're not allowed to identify which laws apply to your situation, but you could probably search [Site] and find what you're looking for." in the many cases where the question asker is looking for something very simple, but we're not allowed to answer. APL (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what reference desks are for, referring people to appropriate services. Just give a caveat with regards to the fact that you've never used it and can't vouch for its quality. Mingmingla (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I guess. Maybe it DOES make sense to direct at least some legal questions to that site. APL (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That broaches a possible solution to the perpetual discussions about both legal and medical advice. Are there sites for those professions that are considered good and reliable? If so, and if there is agreement here, anything that looks like a legal or medical advice could just be directed to those pre-approved sites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We (as in Wikipedia) cannot afford to, even by implication, be seen to be saying that any particular provider of legal or medical advice is "acceptable", because we are simply in no position to make that judgement. There are hundreds of sovereign countries in the world, each with their own legal system. Medical systems are just as fragmented and varied. It is simply impossible and utterly irresponsible for us to decide that any "legaladviceRus.com" or "asktheDoctor.com" website is an apropriate response to every single (or even any) legal or medical question that pops up on out help pages. I'm totally opposed to ever saying anything more than "sorry we cannot answer this question, please seek apropriate professional advice. Roger (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I said IF. And you're right that there is a risk. It comes back to "see a doctor" or "see a lawyer". You can't go wrong with that kind of response. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but directing someone to another source is not giving legal or medical advice. Directing people to these sites is telling them to seek a professional.  We are saying when we do this, "we can't help you, here's someone who may be able to." Mingmingla (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, which could be interpreted as us saying "this place will give you the right answer", and when they get screwed over they can turn around and say "But Wikipedia said to use it, it's their fault"-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the British and US federal governments provide websites with medical information and in a less structured way general legal information (e.g. on the websites of particular government departments/ministries and tax authorities). I don't see any problem in linking somebody to information that their own government has provided. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference desk (permanent link here) has a link to List of online reference desks (permanent link here), which has a disclaimer.
 * Inclusion on this list of online reference desks is not an endorsement.
 * Legal reference desks are at List of online reference desks/Humanities (permanent link here).
 * Medical reference desks are at List of online reference desks/Science (permanent link here).
 * Wikipedia talk:List of online reference desks (permanent link here) has a link to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 81 (During that discussion I started what became the index page, and later I started its 10 subpages.)
 * (I do intend to make sortable wikitables for all subpages, and I request patience until my circumstances are more convenient for me to prepare all of them together. For now, they have extra blank lines for visual clarity.  In many cases, one entry includes one line for the service provider and one line for the reference desk.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC) and 05:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright on coins
Please take a look at this thread here: Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. There are some responses that seem to be getting very close to legal advice to me. I'm not blanking them at this point because I'm not sure if they have actually crossed the line and would like to hear what other people think. (I'll notify the responders of this thread now.) --Tango (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Notified. I think all I have done is opine on the copyright status of coins, which is something we do routinely in uploading images.  That doesn't make it legal advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tango, for the notification. I understand the concern, but as Wehwalt says we routinely discuss the copyright status of various works on Wikipedia, and I made sure to only make specific reference to images that we host and have determined the licensing for. However, maybe there is a grey area here - the user was not requesting advice for the purpose of editing Wikipedia, or asking about the reuse of content hosted here. In those instances I'm sure we would all be comfortable that we can assist the user without falling foul of No legal advice. In cases like this, where both the content and it's intended use are unrelated to Wikipedia, perhaps you have a point. If the consensus should be that we do not answer those types of query, then I will of course avoid doing so in future. I'm undecided on the matter for now.  AJ Cham  11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I will be more careful in future to make sure that it is my personal opinion and it's just my four halfpence.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

RD/S deletion
I deleted this pointless and unhelpful edit from a discussion on RD/S. --Viennese Waltz 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it any more pointless than the comment to which it replies ("I bet it's low for the UK")? Why is it unhelpful? Is it so totally beyond you to explain that even if the stereotype were true, gay not = sterile, so the effective population would just need to have alleles for all-gay offspring? Or is it just the signature to which you object? Franamax (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All VW had to do was ask, rather than (as usual) kissing up to the LC sock. And by the way, I didn't make up that joke, I've been hearing it for decades, and everyone knows it's silly. Monty Python exploited that idea frequently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness and balance, I have now deleted the "low for the UK" comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, the effective population is almost certainly low for the UK (relative to the actual population), especially among the non-immigrant population. While it's not a helpful response, I don't understand what's wrong with it. Buddy431 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The smiley face right after it suggests that the poster was just being funny. And I would argue that it's every bit as "racist" as what I said (which is an odd term for LC to use, considering that most of my ancestors came from England). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This place isn't about being funny.74.163.16.52 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right you are, me lad, and that's why I deleted it. P.S. Speaking of funny stuff... You've admitted you're a sock. Who are you a sock of? When you go reporting me to your admin buddies, they might like to know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although there are these so call "Funny essays" on this place,there is nothing funny about it,it is a battle here,I was mistaken for enemy by people here who won't even listen,anyway I'm moving off subject,but sure "Thank You" for the rv.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Meanwhile, you might like to read some literature about your state: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway no admins like me,I couldn't get anybody ban if I were a french whore .74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you the note.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can get anybody Ban, at your local drug store. Unless they don't make that product anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They still do. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I used to know someone who worked for that company. They didn't like their job. They said it was the pits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait,you guys are joking?74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask, then I guess we aren't. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well damn,excuse me for not being much of a jokestor.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that if we have to explain the joke, then we're failing at comedy. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm funny as HELL,but my joke are hard to tell on here.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any way lets not turn this into a form.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Boxing this up, as the IP has been found to be a sock of a banned user. See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the intention is to draw the maximum possible attention to something, and make sure that the largest number of people read it, then the best way is surely to box it under the title "Banned user" with a handy "Show" link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.221.83 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to delete it. That could be done too. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd boxes with links on language ref desk
On the language reference desk to the right of the top of the contents, I'm seeing boxes saying "Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." and "Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." Has somebody made a mistake somewhere on the reference desk that's producing these boxes? --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They seemed to have been added in 2010, here and here. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

T-Mobile Hungarian IP is back
This discussion got sillier and sillier Reference desk/Humanities. I didn't initially recognise the IP but after the toilet comment began to remember something about a Hungarian IP. Checking out the archives (admitedly only after I replied again) I found Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 59 and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 57 which confirms they have a history here of asking bizzarre, probably trollish questions. So I guess they're back now, if they ever disappeared (I'm not sure but I think the Hungarian IP I remember was more recent.) I'm not going to try for a block, for starters the IP seems highly dynamic, or even argue for removal of any future questions from the IP, just noting it here as something anyone seeing questions from that IP may want to consider before answering. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just declare the discussion finished (I linked to where they can contact the DOD if they want to troll them instead) and lock it? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Political forum
It appears the humanities desk is being used for political posturing as a forum which is expressly against WP. Refdesk is supposed to answer research question NOT be used for political pandering of one side or the other. See Reference_desk/Humanities, Reference_desk/Humanities and Reference_desk/HumanitiesLihaas (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of those have legitimate, albeit difficult to answer, questions at the heads of them. Some of the answers are better than others, but many of them have links to the pertinent issues. I don't think the fact that something is politically relevant, and people have different views of it, should be a good reason to not include it in the Reference Desk. I do think that we could all try a bit harder at keeping our answers in the realm of reference-able facts, though, rather than idle or uninformed speculation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Science Desk: "Most specific term for the misleading sensation I am feeling"
I have removed this question and its answers. The OP clearly asks us to diagnose and identify symptoms and causes for a reaction to his drug. Issues of soap-boxing aside, the question is asking for diagnosis about the OP's reaction to a drug. Like any other question about drug-reactions, we can not know whether the reaction is "normal" or "very seriously abnormal" via the information provided. The OP's exact words are: "please do describe, as precisely and concisely as possible, what's happening to me" - which I think is a clear case of asking for specific diagnosis. Nimur (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that talking about trip reports is something you usually get much advice from a doctor about. This isn't a diagnosis - the diagnosis is, well, duh, he took a drug!  The treatment might be beyond us if it were a medical issue, but he's not seeking medical help to come down faster. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they didn't actually specify the drug or dosage, did they? So do we really know it's not an unexpected lethal interaction, or brain damage occurring? The OP is asking for an explanation of an altered, possibly self-induced, mental state - why isn't that a diagnosis? Some answers could lead to the impression that what they are experiencing is "normal" (for whatever drug), and we have no way of assessing that. Also the thread was already getting forum-ey. Plus they didn't offer to share. ;) On balance, I support the removal. Franamax (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It not so much that he's asking us to explain his symptoms, but that people are volunteering explanations. Rather, he wants to know the medical terminology (not the cause) of a symptom he has experienced. Although I guess that's still dangerously close to asking for a diagnosis. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussing altered states of consciousness is a far cry from medical advice. Next thing I know you'll be ruling it out of bounds to talk about the effect of chanting "Om mani padme hum". Wnt (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one here is qualified to answer his question. Only a doctor is qualified, and only with a personal visit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good removal. No one here is in any position to give a safe and useful answer. He needs to see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any medical request here, and I don't see any need to see a doctor. The guy is asking about how the brain works. He's not asking for anybody to fix anything, or whether it is safe, or anything that is medical advice. If the question was, "when I stub my toe, why does it hurt?", would it be medical advice? I don't think so. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He says he's on drugs. That makes it a medical situation, and no one here is qualified to answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I need another cup of coffee to think this one through. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards supporting the removal. The person isn't just asking for info on how their brain works. They're asking us to describe and name something they're experiencing. The trouble is given the complexity of the situation, the only way we can do that is by diagnosing what their symptom is. I don't know about the 'stub you toe' example, but if someone says they dropped a brick on their toe and want why it hurts when they wiggle it 1 day later with a bunch of other descriptions of what wrong, we have a similar problem. Perhaps they have significant soft tissue damage (i.e. bad bruising). Perhaps they have broken bones. The answer varies depending on what the specific case is, and we shouldn't be deciding what is the case for that specific person just as we shouldn't be deciding here. The fact that there are competing theories for what they're actually experiencing demonstrates this. Nil Einne (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling the debate's pretty much over, but I agree with Nil. I wouldn't call it a request for medical advice, but it so obviously has medical implications that we should delete it as inappropriate. The "medical advice" tag is accurate enough. The OP needs medical advice anyway, and an explanation from us that trivialises or normalises what he is experiencing might stop him from seeking it. This, in the end, is as bad as inept medical advice. He is on undisclosed drugs, and we cannot answer his question. IBE (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the posters you guys seem concerned about. The prohibition against giving medical advice to OP's who are requesting same is a very good and essential thing.  I thought about it before posting - but decided that neither was the OP asking for medical advice, nor was I giving it.  But I can see where the opposite view can seem plausible.  I suggest that clear guidelines be developed, rather than just say in the Help Desk preamble that requests for medical diagnosis or medical opinions will be deleted.  And one of the guidelines Wikipedia should adopt is "When in doubt do not delete or hide", as doing so annoys people who posted in good faith, and might inhibit them and others from posting either questions or answers.  I note that although Reference Desk offers a service not available elsewhere (other sites eg are dedicated to helping students with assignments and won't answer anything outside school or college scope), and is potentially very good, not too many folks use Science Reference Desk, once you take out those who are just seeking some pure entertainment, and those who just ask daft nonsense, as in today's question about pokeballs.  Wickwack58.167.228.55 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A second thought: The poster Looie who implied it was a delusion (ie false perception of reality in a person who does not understand that it is false) caused by brain damage was perilously close to offering medical advice.  However, he was so obviously wrong (the OP clearly knew his experience was false) there was no damage done.  His was really the only conflicting theory.  Perhaps only his post should have been deleted.  Wickwack60.230.222.4 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If I wrote in with a question that said, "I smoked a cigarette today, and it made my blood pressure go up. What's the mechanism behind that?" it wouldn't be a request for medical advice. It's the same question, one of the drugs happens to be one we know about (and is legal), the other is unstated (and who knows what it is). It's not medical advice either way; there is no diagnosis, there is no prescription. If the question was, "is this safe? is this normal?" or "is this a sign of something awful?" or "what should I do?" then it would be medical advice. But it wasn't anywhere near that and it was pretty clear that the OP did not regard this as a medical question whatsoever, but a cognitive one. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The link between smoking cigarettes and cardiovascular disease is well-known. No one here is qualified to answer the question, "I'm on unspecified drugs... why am I experiencing this?" The only valid answer is to tell him to go see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd think a doctor is correct here. The OP is asking about how the brain works. Your average physician will not know much about this. The effect of hallucinogenic chemicals on the brain is actually something that has been well-studied and indeed some of us may have read relevant literature on it. Since we are not giving medical advice at all (e.g. prescriptions or diagnosis) I can hardly see why one would consider this to be something that a physician should comment on, or that we should all be quiet on. I think you overestimate the ignorance of others based on your own ignorance of the subject matter, mixed with your own prudishness with respect to anything that involves the word "drugs." This is why the basic rule of whether advice is being solicited (and given) is better than trying to do subject matter understanding of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)-
 * No, he's asking why some unspecified drug is apparently having some effect on him. Unless you're a doctor who's paid him a personal visit, you know nothing about his condition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a summing up: Wnt and Mr98 have applied logic and analogies to show that the OP was not asking for medical advice - he was asking a medical question.  Questions are ok, requests for advice are not.  Their logic seems very solid to me.  On the other hand, Baseball Bugs has said twice that we are not qualified to answer, on the basis that the reason for the OP's halucinatory experience (using the term halucinatory is its general sense) is not generally known (by persons not medical practitioners presumably), as compared to (say) the link between smoking and disease.  There are two problems with Baseball Bug's thinking:  (a) Baseball Bugs may not know it, but this type of of experience, among normal persons who have not taken drugs, IS known outside the medical profession.  It is an experience that most people don't experience, but some do, particularly as pre-school children.  (b) it is false thinking as the following example shows.
 * Say a person writes a question on Science Desk, "I've cut my finger yesterday, and now it's red. What causes the redness?".  Clearly that isn't a request for medical advice - he just wants to understand the phenomena of going red.  No reasonable person would go to a doctor over such a trivial thing anyway.  Another person might respond with "Its red because a blood vessels have opened up in order to get more white cells to the site to fight infection."  That isn't medical advice, and is something that many, but not all, in the general population know.  Another person might respond with a more technical response, giving the correct names of the various blood cell types, and explaining the formation of scar tissue, etc.  That still isn't medical advice, but it is something not generally known among non-medical people.
 * This touches on the second issue raised in this talk. While Wnt and Mr 98 have dealt with the issue of whether or not the OP requested medical advice, the issue of whether the answers provided by myself and Looie where medical advice has not been so clearly dealt with.  I don't think my answer was medical advice - I'm not so sure about Looie's.  His answer sounded more like a possible medical diagnosis to me, especially as he seems in his own page (only one mouse click away for the OP) to qualified to give it.
 * Do you guys not see the need to have some clear guidelines, as suggested in my previous post?
 * You guys might be debating the wrong thing anyway. The fiirst thing I said in my answer was, essentially, "don't take drugs again you fool".  But others in their posts supported drug taking - isn't this a concern?
 * Wickwack58.167.246.168 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one here is qualified to answer the question the OP asked. Only a doctor is so qualified, and only by a personal visit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So sayth Bugs, apparently the only one qualified to give commentary on who is qualified. :-P --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a "no medical advice" rule. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The question of whether we should discuss drug taking with anything other than a "just say no" approach is a very different one than the current one. But talking as if people do, in the real world, take drugs (whose legality varies widely by jurisdiction) seems patently within the scope of the reference desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP asked for a diagnosis, whether he called it that or not. No one here is qualified to diagnose the OP's condition. Only a doctor can do that, and only with a personal visit. Now, if someone here actually is a doctor, and actually pays the OP a personal visit and diagnoses his situation, then they're qualified to comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire Bug's persistence & negotiation skill. Other people use logic and analogy to explain their reasoning.  But Bugs just keeps on re-stating his position exactly the same each time, without any logic or explanation of his thinking whatsoever.  That's a good stragety, because even if he's wrong, you can't argue against an explanation not provided.  However, in this case, we may have all been had.  EggCentric's next question, judging from the title (Urgent Antihistamine question) and what text remains, was definitely a request for medical advice.  So maybe he designed the first question (about halucinatory experience) to test us, see what gets thru and what doesn't?  He's having fun.  Don't forget that this discussion is only 2 mouse clicks away from anyone looking at Science Desk.  Wickwack124.178.51.186 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire IP's. They're so courageous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

archiving delays
Apologies for the delay in archiving the desks -- I'm aware of the problem, and am working on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help in managing the desks. You never have to apologize (unless you're getting paid :-). ---Sluzzelin talk  15:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you were being paid, I'm guessing it would take quite a bit longer before anyone would mind. But it's always great to learn about people who keep things going behind the scenes. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think it's working again. One of the issues was that I've transferred the archiving scripts to a new machine, and they didn't work quite right at first.  I think I've got everything mostly fixed, and I'm spot-checking the edits, but please, if you notice any archiving glitches, let me know. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is classical music humanities or entertainment?
What about jazz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.132.240 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we've had discussions before (check out the archives) where people felt classical music would generally go in humanities, but some people felt this was unfairly biased against pop music although I'm not sure how many people want questions about Friday (Rebecca Black song) in humanities (well questions about why people went so nuts etc will likely be fine). On the whole, I don't think anyone will complain either way but I suspect the responses will be better in humanities. Generally speaking, I suspect jazz will be fine in humanities or entertainment, although based on the history of the artist's talk page, article and Youtube, I suggest questions about Kenny G go to entertainment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it doesn't matter. I wouldn't ask such a question in Mathematics or Computing, but in general as long as the subject matter of the question is related in some reasonable way to the subject of the ref desk, there's no point in splitting hairs.  Ask at either desk, and you won't make anyone mad.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Classical goes in humanities, pop and jazz go in ents. --Viennese Waltz 09:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- LarryMac | Talk  11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No citation needed, it's just commonsense. I speak as one who loves both classical and popular music and one who agrees 100% with the famous quote that Lennon and McCartney were "the finest songwriters since Schubert".  But one is high culture and the other is pop culture, there's no point in denying that. --Viennese Waltz 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO it depends on the specifics of the question. If it's "What was Beethoven's dog's name?" or "Where did Haydn get married?" it belongs in Humanities but if it is about the music itself it should logically go in Entertainment. We should not take sides in "music snobbery". Roger (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since many of the same editors peruse both of those boards, it doesn't much matter. "The Humanities" usually refers to "art". Classical music is usually considered to be in the realm of "art". Whether songs by Sheb Wooley or Napoleon XIV qualify as "art" could be a matter of debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. All music is art of one kind or another.  The distinction is between high culture and pop culture. --Viennese Waltz 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack. That would normally be "pop culture", but in your case it's "classic". So, anyway, yes, "pop culture"... like it says under the icon. Today's musical "high art" was once "pop culture". Maybe songs like "Along Came Jones" will be considered "art" someday. Meanwhile, it seems to me Humanities and Entertainment were once under the same umbrella. Maybe they should just be merged back together? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a personal attack - unless you believe you are what you say, in which case there's little hope for you. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was his style of personal attack. Not that it matters. VW's opinion of the value of my opinions is roughly the same as my opinion of the value of his opinions. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it matters. You've accused him of making a personal attack.  That's a big deal around here.  If it didn't matter, why did you say it?  I don't put in writing everything I think about other editors, and that's always been a safe strategy.  But since you tell us you now have the power to read minds and to interpret those unexpressed thoughts as personal attacks against you, I guess I'd better leave WP now, because otherwise I'm in big trouble.  Damn, the New Age wasn't supposed to be like this.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What doesn't matter is the fact that he made a personal attack. It's his typical style. Notice I even thanked him for it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are links to eight archived discussions related to this discussion.
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 20 (December 2006)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 33 (May 2007)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 42 (January 2008)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 50 (July 2008)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 60 (January 2009)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 70 (April 2010)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 70 (April 2010)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 88 (November 2011)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AN ban discussion on RD editor
There is a proposal for a formal community ban on an RD editor here Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235. This is the editor who in the past used to ask questions in the form 'why X can be a word in language Y', and now seems to ask questions on lifts and lift companies and a bunch of other stuff. (I've long personally suspected they didn't actually care about the answer for if they didn't already know it based on and other cases where they clearly knew the answer, and other stuff related to their behaviour.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change the pp-semi-indef to pp-protected. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on the wrong page anyway. The talk page is not protected in any way. The article page is fully protected but not marked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bugs: what are you on about? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing now. I see what the deal is. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Reference Desk is edit-protected, at least that's what it says on my screen. Is this right? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC) The message is on the front screen of the Reference Desk, by the way. Never seen it there before and I'm wondering what's happened? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the history, Tammy, from 20 April - protected to keep people from posting questions on the Ref Desk page rather than the individual sub-desks. -- LarryMac  | Talk  11:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we have it so it doesn't have that awful "this page is protected from editing" template? Aside from being dirt ugly (and not necessary), it is also going to be more confusing than usual on that page for people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. Someone just needs to add  small=yes to the template for it to be more subtle. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do that easy enough, but then there's no indication for non-padlock-savvy readers/editors. I previewed some "reason=because you must select a category for your question" wording but nothing read back sensibly (especially since Wikipedia categories are different that RD "categories"). What about an editnotice though? Then it could be small=yes and an explanation would show up for newish clickers of buttons. Replacing the struck text: if we make an editnotice page, will anonymous or unconfirmed editors be able to receive an editnotice when the page is fully protected? If so, then we could use an editnotice to inform editors who actually try to edit the page, rather than just read it. Franamax (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand why that page needs protection. Looking through its history, I see no recent abuse or accidentally misplaced questions or any other reason for protection/prevention/etc. If I missed the rampant misplacement of questions on that page, I still think the message is ugly and misleading. Thank for changing it, those who can. ---Sluzzelin  talk  02:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yeah, on review I see no indication in logs, talk pages, contrib histories, deleted edits, nothing to fully justify admin-only editing here, so I'm going to return this to semi-protection and ask the previously acting admin to comment here. This will of course make Martin's change now incorrect, but I'm confortable with letting the regulars here figure out appropriate wording / iconage. No problem with anyone else refullprotecting either. Franamax (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the "previously acting admin", my basic question is "what's the benefit of reducing to semiprotection"? I simply don't see any reason that confused autoconfirmed editors should be able to ask questions at the directory page instead of at one of the topic-based desks.  Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, however I'm not able to find evidence of confused autoconfirmed editors having actually done that recently. Therefore we should be heading toward our default state of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and there's no reason that I can see to restrict editing to only admins. In particular I see no reason that regular editors here shouldn't have free access to clarify messages intended for less-experienced users, or to move accidental questions here to the correct desk for that matter. If that ever actually happens. I'm still wondering if an editnotice would be helpful though... Franamax (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to the small icon. Of course the icon itself isn't clarifying, but if the user does click "edit," then it says quite clearly what the editing restrictions for the main portal are. That seems quite adequate to me for the purpose of the page, and better than preemptively plastering a "you can't edit this unless you are registered" message on the front of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical. Legal. Mechanical?
I understand why we cannot provide medical or legal advice. But what if someone asks about a problem with his car, and as a result of RD advice, his car blows up? And he might very well be injured. Is there a different standard for other types of advice? And where is the dividing line? There is obviously no danger in a writer asking for grammar advice. Just curious. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but my understanding from reading this talk page over the years is that the Reference Desk is covered by the various disclaimers and that the restriction medical / legal questions is self-imposed for moral reasons. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That, plus people seem to have an overwhelming urge to give dangerous medical and legal advice based only on a little learning, whereas they mostly seem aware of how dangerously irresponsible the equivalent advice would be when it comes to mechanical problems. I'm not entirely sure why that should be so. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the fact that practicing medicine or law without a licence is a crime in most places - including Florida in the US, the "legal home" of Wikipedia - is a significant consideration. Motor mechanics is not legally restricted/regulated in the same way.


 * That's actually not a consideration at all. To practice law without a license, you have to (a) claim to be a lawyer and (b) accept money for your "services".  The situation is probably similar for medicine. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We really shouldn't give potentially dangerous advice of any sort. The special thing about medical and legal advice is that almost any bad advice is potentially dangerous.  But we also don't give people advice on how to work on their home electrical wiring, for example. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If my friend is a professional auto mechanic/electrician, and my car had a problem, and I rang him up and asked for some advice, and I did what he said, and my car blew up, there's no way he could be held responsible for that. He was simply answering a question to the presumed best of his knowledge with the information he was given.  But if I called my other friend, a doctor, with a health issue that I or a family member was having, and he gave me some advice sight unseen, and someone got very sick, he could be held liable for that.  It's negligence even for a trained doctor to act that way; how much less appropriate would it be for completely untrained people to give such advice to total strangers?  Doctors have disbarment and deregistration as disincentives to act like that; we don't have those things to worry about, so there has to be some other threshold to deter us from acting irresponsibly.  That's what our policy is about.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What if someone reads travel advice on the ref desk and ends up stranded in some unsavory place, or misses their plane, or falls into a river and drowns? What if they follow shopping advice and buy something unsuitable? What if they lose a bar bet based on incorrect Wikipedia info, or fail their exams? The disclaimer makes it clear that information on Wikipedia is not to be trusted and should be used with caution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Life has its hazards. Legal and medical questions are not the only things that could go wrong, but they are among the most problematic, which is one reason legal and medical advice are forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the "morality" here is that lawyers and especially physicians have high-paying jobs and have worked tirelessly to protect their privileges. There is all manner of terrible medical advice out there on the Internet, out and out scams like "homeopathic medicine" sold in stores, but what seems to draw doctors' ire most is the correct information.  Thus it is "moral" to drive these people away to ask their questions at Yahoo Answers or whoever comes up next on the Google search, without even giving them a hint of where they might find good information (presumably as helping them reach any such site would also be immoral?).  The policy here is one which many of us disagree with entirely, and which is overzealously enforced - while described as a ban on "medical advice", it's implemented as a ban on providing any kind of medical information to someone who has foolishly revealed that they have an illness.  Even if a known sick person rephrases a question to be a biology question anyone else could ask, the mere fact that we know that they are sick commands us, we are told, to cast them out, crying "unclean! unclean!"  Whatever misfortune might befall the poor and ill (or the middle-class and frugal) outside of our site should not be seen as an immoral outcome of our actions, but as a noble sacrifice at the altar of Moloch the Mighty. Wnt (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Acting incredulous and speaking hyperbole doesn't actually make you right, you know. -- Jayron  32  19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a better way to reformulate the problem. We should not provide advice of any kind.  The top of the page doesn't say "Welcome to Wikipedia Advice Desk."  It says "Reference Desk."  There's no problem with providing a reference to a question on topics of medical or biological nature.  The issue is when somebody wants advice.  That is not what the reference desk is for, in the first place.  If someone comes asking for advice on how to fix their car, or advice on diagnosing their ailment, they're in the wrong place.  We are on the reference desk to refer questioners to reliable sources; and in the case of medical questions, the most reliable source of information is almost always a trained medical professional. Nimur (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. An exception might be advice on how to find information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've considered suggesting what Nimur has written here on a number of occasions. On the other hand, completely prohibiting advice would probably result in the computing desk being shut down for lack of posts. And the help desk would get deleted for obvious reasons. :-) To misquote Frodo Baggins, "Go not to the reference desks for advice, for they will say both yes and no." Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon G-forces
I could use some help on figuring out how Peregrine Falcons withstand G-forces when pulling out of a dive. I have been talking about this in the talk of wikiproject birds under the section Peregrine Falcon. Plese help.Nhog (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This probably belongs on the science page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks Nhog (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I tryed but it isent coming up withanything usfull. Nhog (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I came up with a bit (now here), but not much. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Section title disappeared on edits
When I edited Reference_desk/Science, the section title of the following section ("Awesome Science things in Europe?") seemed to disappear and it's contents were appended. However, when I try to edit the section, everything seems fine. I even tried to add the section title back in, without any apparent success. Any idea what's going on here or how to fix it ?

User:TammyMoet seems able to edit this section even though I can't, so perhaps it's my computer. I will try a reboot. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Reboot seems to have solved it, but I will leave this post here, in case it recurs or anyone else encounters a similar problem. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6
Just as a heads up in case anyone missed all the AN//I discussion etc, IPv6 is now enabled on WMF servers. 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you know?  Equazcion  ( talk )  14:35, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you like to know.... 2001:0:5EF5:79FD:20CB:1C04:833A:FA41 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting 2001:838:2:1:0:0:30:67 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about ipv6, how are the addresses generated? They are allocated the same way as ipv4 by isps and such? 82.45.62.107 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the current time, very few ISPs are allocating IPv6s to home users (or even run of the mill businesses) so most people are either using some transition mechanism like Teredo or 6to4 or some sort of tunnel broker. I believe our IPv6 article and also the recent discussion on the planned enabling in WP:AN have some explaination. 2001:0:5EF5:79FD:20CB:1C04:833A:FA41 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Image hosting
I'd like to upload a handful of pictures to allow the denizens of the science desk to have a look at them. There are quite a few free hosting sites out there, but ISTR that one or more had recently been causing problems with popups, excessive ads, etc. Is there a recognized "best" one out there? Matt Deres (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * imgur 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give it a try. Matt Deres (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed medical question
I have removed the question and responses from this section, as it was a request for medical advice. I had originally closed the conversation, but that was insufficient; it continued to be edited by at least two editors (this edit being of most concern) in addition to me asking people to stop editing it. If you think that this is not an appropriate response, feel free to revert, but I personally feel that it is the best choice, as the goal with closing it was starting to get derailed. Falconus p t   c 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with Bugs' response " My great-uncle, who was a farmer, had an effective treatment for moles: his shotgun. Your results might vary. " re ridding of moles  hydnjo (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything inherently wrong with what he said about getting rid of the moles; it was just that it kind of reopened the closed conversation. In any case, I did talk with Bugs on his talk page, and let him know that he could weigh in here if he would like; I'm not trying to raise a complaint, I'm just informing people that I removed the question, and why.  As for the editors that posted there, I think that it's sufficiently resolved, at least in my opinion.  I hope that I'm not being overzealous, and I apologize if you find that to be the case. Falconus p  t   c 00:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at all, Falconus. Your experience has just demonstrated one of the many reasons why our guidelines call for such questions to be removed completely from the Desks, rather than left in place&mdash;'hatted' threads represent an attractive nuisance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * After e/c: No, not at all. In fact I was concerned about Bugs' response regarding the "  ...on my face" part. Seriously Falc, I was just trying(?) to make funny. I think that you did the right thing and perhaps Bugs pushed it a bit too late. hydnjo (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good removal. The only valid serious response to the question is, "See a doctor". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Advertising a dating site
A question to RD/S ends with an encouragement to visit a dating site. Should that line be deleted? DriveByWire (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has Category:Online dating services.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will remove the line per our content-guideline on link-spam. It is probable that the user's entire post qualifies as link-spam.  Nimur (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos. That's a new twist on coatracking. A bunch of questions about oil, and the real purpose is to spam his website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the actual removal: . StuRat (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Romney_vs._Obama
I have closed Reference_desk/Miscellaneous as a rather contentious forum discussion on an external op ed whose inappropriateness another editor had already remarked upon. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I "linkified" your post. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Q did not request personal opinions and there are lots of ways to reply to that Q without giving them. For example, whether "Newsmax Media" is a reliable source is certainly something we should know, as we need to decide whether to use it as a source for our own articles. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The question and responses didn't seem all that contentious, although there's certainly the potential for it. A key factor is that who's "leading" doesn't really matter, it's who's likely to get the electoral college majority, and that's still up in the air. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Suffice it to say another editor already commented on the inappropriateness of the discussion, which I do not wish to discuss [continue] here, and if the advice sought were actually about the outside source's reliability there is a noticeboard for that. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the place to discuss the appropriateness of the Q, and that board is for people who want to use the source for a Wikipedia article, not for their own benefit. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad joker
Is it appropriate to lambast a questioner at RD/S at length just for not liking one's joke? DriveByWire (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, lambasting is not appropriate. But it is also inappropriate to make jokes on the ref desk. That doesn't seem to stop Stu (and many others), so I say carry on to all. Perhaps if more users complain about these "jokes", then our regulars will feel less compelled to make them. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the entertainment potential may be of StuRat's quip "...followed quickly by a wet and sticky feeling." it was interjected in small font when the OP had already received more serious attention. I judge that tolerable. The OP then made it a personal issue viz. "comment about your semen" (my bolding). I judge that to be an irritation above which one should remain. StuRat failed to do so and instead launched into mocking "you have to run and hide when you see such jokes" - which is obviously a false premise since the OP did neither - and giving presumptive directions from "we" meaning Wikipedia editors "if you do post here, warn us how sensitive you are". These are no less negative behaviours than StuRat's crusade against spelling the posessive pronoun "its" that he chooses to continue ad nauseum. DriveByWire (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The "run and hide" bit is when they said "So I have removed my OWN question". Deleting your question because you don't like the replies seemed to qualify.  And I stand by my remarks that the OP should stick to a heavily censored board for their questions, especially if they get this upset when their own attempts at censorship are reverted. StuRat (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a strange question anyway, and the answers were getting into medical areas. Why don't I like to get up in the morning? It's like asking, Why do I like to eat? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stu gets a little carried away sometimes. But ragging someone about saying "it's" instead of "its" is a tad pendantic. P.S. It's spelled "possessive". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PS. "Pedantic" has only one "n". And it's "ad nauseam".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oy. It's not my fault. I'm under a spell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Looie is the one to yell at, since he started that tangent. And the only one who "lambasted" anyone was the OP himself. Ironically, although it was not an overt request for medical advice, the answers were getting into that area. Best the whole thing be removed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what's going on, but why does anyone need to yell at anyone? ---Sluzzelin talk  01:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ask the drive-by that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No one forced Sturat to respond to Looie and whatever the wrongs of Looie's additional comment on sex, he did at least try to provide helpful on topic info in the comment rather then just post to post a joke. I don't really think it was that big a deal, but I also don't understand why people removed the collapse section template was removed. Regardless of what others think about the appropriateness of jokes, if comments are clearly offtopic to the OP's original question and the OP find them unhelpful and unwanted, collapsing them should always be an acceptable option particularly when the OP wants it. (And this is hardly the first time it has been used.) If people felt that the collapse heading wasn't sufficiently neutral, the better option was to reword it rather then removing the collapsing altogether. (In cases when the answers are arguably ontopic to the original or followup questions by the OP but the OP just doesn't like them, then I agree collapsing is more dubious but I can't see any way you can argue that here.) Note that the OP did not even collapse Looie's partially on topic comment, unlike the followup IP. Whether or not they 'draw more attention' seems unimportant if the OP prefers not to have to see the answers or have them confusing the discussion. At best discuss it with the OP rather then removing the collapsing point blank. Note that although the OP did later attempt to remove the comments altogether which was arguably wrong, this was only after they twice attempted to collapse the offtopic comments but this was removed or reverted. Incidentally, I would consider StuRat's comment to the OP a form of 'lambasting' Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Years ago the venerable magazine Which? ran a survey on sleep difficulties and reported that many readers independently advised having sex. That is a usable source for Looie's comment. As to my two misspellings I declare mea culpa since they were the chance product of negligence for which I apologise. DriveByWire (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure the OP left unhappy with their ref desk experience. I'd remind the group that we are supposedly modeled on a reference desk, where a patron leaving out of displeasure due to jokes from a staffer would certainly be grounds for chastisement. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The huge diff being that they are paid, so can be expected to work in a humorless environment, but such drudgery doesn't tend to attract volunteers. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, my comment wasn't just a joke, either. After sex many people would feel the need to shower or otherwise "clean up", and this delays sleep. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Semantic Mantis, it seems to be your position that it's inappropriate to make jokes on the ref desks, period.  None at all.  Is that correct?  If so, I'd strongly disagree that that's workable.  If rigidly enforced, it would drive away many editors, and attract virtually none except humourless Scrooges.  There will inevitably be levity, humour, jokes and laughter in any human environment, no matter how serious the underlying context may be.  The catch is, like everything, there's a time and a place for humour.  Not everyone's sense of the right time and place is exactly the same, and that can sometimes be a cause of tension.  But banning humour entirely is certainly not a solution to anything.  There is a happy medium (and her name is Madame Esmeralda).  Some people need to lighten up, while others need to be less prone to wisecracking in every possible circumstance.   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I was just thinking in general: this issue is no big deal, really. Since you ask, I'll clarify my general position: I suppose jokes are fine when the question is seemingly by/for regulars. But for IP questions and unknown (to the answerer) users, I would encourage all "regulars" of the ref desk to use humor/jokes with restraint, caution, and small font. It's just not what a ref desk is for, and we have can joke on our talk pages whenever we want :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My comment was not meant as a joke at all. Sex has a relaxing effect for almost everybody, and many people use it as a sleep aid. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And Stu's comment about things being messy was right on the money. Truthful. Reality-based. Sex is messy. And that's the way it is. (And if it's not messy, then you're not doing it right.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was entirely an option to politely say "hey, sorry that one didn't work for you" or even remove it, but there's nothing requiring that to happen. Ergo, status quo. Sazea (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

americans again
I closed this question asking for opinions about why americans say stupid things on internet forums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#American_patriotism_in_sports — Preceding unsigned comment added by μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Sensible close. Brammers (talk/c) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Active discussions in the "wrong" location
Twice today I have reverted User:Medeis regarding the Sci desk conversation on illegal immigrants in the US: once removing a hat tag, once undoing a desk move. Medeis considers the discussion misplaced; that the conversation properly belongs at Humanities -- and as a "where should this question have originally gone" discussion point, I'd agree with him. However, the discussion was already in progress, active, and productive both times that he disrupted it -- and given such, I view closing and moving-without-relink (really, even moving with relink) to be disruptive process-for-process'-sake without regard to the practical benefit of answering the question (1) as fully as possible and (2) where the original poster can most easily find it again. Comments welcome. &mdash; Lomn 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. I simply moved this where it belongs.  The question has nothing to do with science.  I am going to move it again.  I am not interested in an uninvolved busybody's comments on my talk page.  If anyone esle wants to revert the move I'll be interested in the reason for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the move, but do feel that a link to the new location was needed (I see it has now been added). I'm not sure why you hatted to link, there's no reason why that needs to be hidden. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My intent was to show it as "closed", as a hint to go where the discussion belongs, rather than beginning it again at the science desk. I didn't think "finding" the humanities desk would be such a "difficult" ""task".  I am truly puzzled as to why the OP didn't provide the link rather than go out of his way to revert the move.  Perhaps providing links is only for advanced users, while vindictive nonsense is basic?  In any case, I have chosen to fix the vandalism and move on.  Others are free to disagree.   μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The other Ref Desks may not be hard to find for the regulars, but seeking them out and then finding the question are unnecessary added confusions for everyone involved. Generally speaking, when something at the Ref Desk is moved, whoever moves it provides a link to the new location.  While I agree with the move, I also agree that a link should have been supplied. The last two sentences in the immediately preceding paragraph might themselves be described as "vindictive nonsense" and removed as "vandalism". Bielle (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bielle, I'll repeat myself in case you don't think I meant what I said. Going to all that effort to revert a perfectly reasonable move and create comments here and on my talk page rather than just adding a link (if that's what this was really about) is indeed "silly nonsense" and "vandalism".  "Silly nonsense" and "vandalism."  Can you give me a good reason why comments on illegal aliens in the US would be moved bak from Humanities to Science?That's my opinion.  I may be wrong, but I am entitled to it and I am going to characterize that behavior that way without commenting on Lomn as a person.  I think I do a lot of helpful work here and provide a lot of useful and very in depth answers for no remuneration expected other than basic respect.  I hope you don't mind if I unwatch this project page for a while, assuming I don't see my actions reverted again. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the move, but not with your attitude. Please try to be nicer to people. StuRat (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Now I wish I'd committed my original "Grumpy Lomn meet Grumpy Medeis" comment before anyone else posted here. Medeis, yes it was a misplaced question, yes someone else should have already moved it before replying, yes it should end up at RD/H. No you were wrong to just hat a legitimate although misplaced question, no you were wrong to move a thread without going back to provide a forward link to the new location. Lomn, yes you were right to revert the hatting, meh on whether you should have taken the oh-so-easy step of linking the new location so there would be continuity of discussion, you can also be a recalcitrant curmudgeon like many of the "senior" deskers, no you shouldn't have left such a snarky post at Medeis' talk page. As a totally novel concept, does anyone think that collegial discussion might have worked here? Franamax (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My apologies for moving straight to grumpy action. &mdash; Lomn 13:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, so it was in two places for awhile. I thought I was suffering from deja vu, from deja vu. The obvious thing to do would have been to move it and either provide a link or say "moved to humanities" desk. Wouldn't take much time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

worrisome op question: please remove
on the "kill strike practice" question, please see the OP's edit which I referenced: this shows delusional schizofrenic tendencies (pretty obviously IMHO) and if not in general, then certainly in this specific case the question should not be answered. (At a minimum. Perhaps even more proactive reporting steps should be taken.)  If you look through my edits you will see me first shrugging it off but then growing worried as I looked at the OP's history more deeply, and eventually I removed the question. (Which has since been reinstated). Please remove the question, at least in this case. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing this evidence of schizophrenic tendencies. Could you point it out? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC


 * Since when do we diagnose medical or psychiatric conditions on the Ref Desk? I don't have an opinion on the appropriateness of the original question, but I feel very strongly that 80.99.254.208's comments are inappropriate. Bielle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

yet another racialist question
I guess I should be used to the racialist questions, but I have closed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Biracial_people as having no obvious purpose other than to solicit opinion and inflame debate. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)3
 * It didn't seem particularly inflammatory, and it's a legit question to ask, even if the premise is faulty. Where I live, most biracial people are "half-white".  We don't need our OPs to give sources to their questions, and Matt Deres gave, as you noted, a very good answer to it.  I won't undo your close, but I also won't agree with it. Mingmingla (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I guess we can't demand sources, but we can challenge silly, ignorant assumptions. Rather than my fairly polite "Are they?". I could have said "They're not. Your question is based on a silly, ignorant assumption." It would have been true, but would it have helped? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question reminds me of this one: "Why do flamingoes stand with one foot up in the air?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general point: μηδείς may want to let another user catch the next potentially controversial change. Just so that the potential controversy gets balanced out.  Sazea (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume there's a joke in there somewhere. Speaking of which, the answer to the flamingo thing is, "Because if they lifted the other foot, they would fall down." In regard to bi-racial, "Why are they half-white? Because the other half isn't." Seems simple enough, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there are people who are half-African and half-Asian; or half-Hispanic and half-American native; or any number of other combinations of multiple races that don't involve whiteness. It may have been a trollish question, but I don't see an open-and-shut case.  In such cases, I'd prefer we just answer them with a straight bat, as Matt has done, mark it Resolved and leave it at that.  If it was a troll, this very thread is giving them the oxygen they crave.  So I'll shut up now.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hispanic is considered to be of the Caucasoid race, Mediterranean sub-race. In any case, it might be interesting to see some stats, if there are any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the closure. The user has asked two questions previously, neither of which smelled even a bit like trolling and were quite legitimate. While I think most regs here recognize that discrete races is a concept that has no merit, you can still talk broadly about how various societies have historically interacted with the world. It's not racist nor racialist to note that Europeans have historically been interested in expanding their influence over a wide area of the globe and that, because of that, there might seem to be a larger number of people that are "half-white" than there are people who are "half-Polynesian" or "half-Aborigine". It needn't have been like that; things could have been very different if a few chance occurrences had happened differently. But it did, and so there are a lot of people all over the world with some European heritage. But for some 14th century Chinese politics, it could have been the situation that there were more half-Chinese folks spread all over the world. Why not let the questioner know about this stuff? Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that User:Tango has now unhidden it. I endorse that move. It wasn't trolling. It was an odd question based on a false assumption, perhaps because of limited experience and knowledge on the part of the OP. How to respond is the tricky bit. Our article on Race (human classification) makes it pretty clear that there are no universally agreed definitions in this area, as some of the above posts and those in the thread in question make clear. Because of this, responses have to digress somewhat from the original question. Our challenge is to agree on when they have digressed enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me if I am suspicious of so many IP and new user questions that ask for the explanation of some sort of racial nonsense with no wikipedia venue such as the why "they" call the Italians the Chinamen of Europe question. The "denigrate" question is only the most recent. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're forgiven :-) I'm pretty suspicious about a lot of those kinds of questions too. It's an ugly area. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Suspicion is a natural human reaction, but this is really about how we implement WP:AGF. Sometimes, a post is so blatantly racist, homophobic or sexist in its outright vilification that there's no possible doubt, and we're within our rights to delete it, box it, or whatever we think is appropriate.  But where there could be a reasonable basis for asking a question - a basis that doesn't imply any of those sorts of attitudes, or any agenda to foment hatred - we are required to "assume good faith".  That is, of all the possible motives that might lie behind a question, we are required to assume the least negative one, not the most negative one.  It's called giving them the benefit of the doubt (and anyone who thinks these things are never in doubt, read below).  That's our rule, and if anyone has an issue with it, they can take it up in the relevant forum.
 * Here and in other online places we generally have no idea what led the OP to ask their question in the first place, and there's no requirement for them to tell us. It's folly to assume in any given case we know what's in their minds. We have to get by without any of the non-verbals that in most human communications comprise, depending on who you read, somewhere between 70% and 95% of the meaning of an utterance.  Out there, You're a bastard can be a total put-down or a compliment, depending on how it's said, and their voice tones and inflexions, their body language, and the context tell much more of the story than the mere words used.  Here, there'd be a whole lot of misinterpretation going on, even amongst ourselves, if it were not for the LOLs and smileys that usually accompany jokes.  Most of us have to be trained to do this, because it's quite unnatural to always have to give some overt signal that "This is a joke".  So, when questions come out of left field, and pretty much ALL the questions we deal with come out of left field (not that they're all sinister :), we have to recognise we're dealing with far more unknowns than knowns, and our responses should be conditioned by this.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "assume good faith" is usually a good policy throughout Wikipedia, but I personally believe, based on my occasional forays into the reference desk pages, that many questions about race and sexual practices (especially), that are apparently treated seriously, are actually trolling or baiting. I would not oppose a more sceptical policy on those. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we all think that about some posts. But how do we tell the real ones (the ones that arise from academic research or natural curiosity, with no sinister agenda) from the nefarious ones?   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

request for advice on murder
this IP is requesting how to kill rats, with the side comment that he would be quite happy if it led to the death of his neighbor's children as well--I think it should be deleted entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Rat_poison μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The user removed the hatting. I removed the section entirely.  We are not in a position to advise him on poisoning in any case.  I have placed a warning on his user page. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Directly below a user wants advice on poisoning himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#iodine_reacting_with_titanium μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Dodger67 opined, and I agree, that this was not a request for medical advice, and the hide box was removed. Handschuh-talk to me 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a severe overreaction. They are not asking for advice on murder, this is an intentional misrepresentation on your part.  They made a joke, as obviously their neighbor's kids are not going to be eating rat poison in their roof.  I reverted your deletion.  Plasma Physics answered, and had no problem with the Q, and neither do I.  StuRat (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. We should not be giving advice on the use of poison in any case, we are not professionals or privy to the circumstances. I believe the item should be deleted, regardless of how fun it might be for editors to give answers. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Half the stuff on the Science Desk is about poisonous chemicals. Please don't remove it again unless you first develop a consensus to do so.  Threatening the user with a block on his talk page was also out of line. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, StuRat, having seen the tarbabies you've stuck your fingers in here, yours is the last advice I'd be comfortable taking on any matters of judgment, thank you. Advice on poisoning is simply beyond the pale. I think your action is quite irresponsible. The least you could do is err on the side of caution and wait to restore the thread.  There is no hurry in answering this question. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And seeing your actions here recently, you are the last person with sufficient judgement to act unilaterally, and then threaten to have the OP blocked if he reverts your unilateral deletion. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing about the kids was a joke. Strike it or delete it if you want. I seem to remember something about humor being permitted on the rd so long as it's not an inside joke (you know since if my neighbour's kids are in the roof then they're probably not wanted), but if you're offended, then I'm happy to have it redacted. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In case it is still not clear, we shouldn't be giving advice on the use of environmental poisons at all. This has nothing to do with being "offended"--its about not giving amateur advice on how to treat an infestation using deadly chemicals. μηδείς (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we shouldn't give people car advice because they might screw it up and explode if we're wrong. We shouldn't help people identify pictures of berries because they might eat it and die if we're wrong. We shouldn't even identify flowers for them because they might think it's safe to take inside and their cat eats it and dies. Anyway, if it's clear the OP is already intending to go so far as to spray his roof with industrial chemicals, the only way we could make it worse is to recommend he take a flamethrower to the creepy crawlies. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but unless/until a consensus is reached and the guidelines are modified to add this sort of prohibition to the others, I don't agree that your opinion translates to a blanket "we shouldn't". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the RD has previously given advice on poisoning rats. 112.215.36.174 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate language?
There's a question on the Humanities desk asking about the sexual abuse of children using language that is somewhat unfortunate given the topic. Whilst I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, I wonder if it could be appropriate to moderate the language a little in this case. I was tempted to do it myself, but I haven't - a) because I think the question itself is valid, so doesn't need removing, and b) because it would be rude and presumptuous of me to edit someone else's post. Looking at the OP's talk page leads me to suspect that they would be inclined not to change it if asked. Am I being too squeamish here? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a cutural thing, but it's not a problem to me. A comment I've added on that page is that while I can accept that the word "fuck" on its own is seen as profane by some people under any circumstances (not to me), the expression "fuck him up" should not be so regarded. We all know that the meaning of that expression has nothing to do with the sex act. It's just our amazing English language at work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Substitute "rape", and it falls into place. There's physical rape, and there's also metaphorical rape of the mind. Often, the one is bound with the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You've lost me there. Again, maybe it's a cultural thing, but I've never heard of "metaphorical rape of the mind". Want to expand on that? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More politely put, "messed up", is the same thing. In this case, psychological rape as well as physical rape. The victim is a torrent of emotions over this violation. The perp doesn't care, he just wants what he wants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose the closing of this thread. No matter how high emotions run on the subject, it is an important area of academic inquiry.  There have been a number of children subjected to recovered memory therapy who now are said to be subject to false memory syndrome, and it is said that by being deluded into thinking that they were sexually molested, that they suffer long-term psychological harm akin to - in some versions of the story, even equivalent to - that arising from actual rape.  Which would mean that whatever appalling physical indignities are done to the child, that the child can heal, and it's really the part about having to talk about it, or having people know about it, or being psychoanalyzed about it, or something ... is really where the damage occurs.  (some sources deny there's such a thing as false recovered memory syndrome )  That might seem absurd, but let's bear in mind that little kids endure various types of probing for medical purposes that can range from a rectal thermometer to genital reconstructive surgery for birth defects, and people assume that they don't have any psychological aftereffects!  So there's every reason to look into this part of the intellectual map and put something there for our users besides a fanciful drawing and "Here There Be Monsters".  And I am inclined to assume good faith and assume that the original poster asked a question honestly and legitimately. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef banned user socking?
Does anyone else feel Special:Contributions/DriveByWire who appears to have a good knowledge of how things work in Norway and appears to be inviting some sort of admin response over correcting others spellings of it's/its and makes a big fuss over other such spelling and grammar things in general (and also appears to like a spherical cow response although they're hardly unique in this) bears strong similarities with another indefinitely blocked former RDer? Worth filing an SPI? Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm 12. What is this? DriveByWire (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you're 12 or 21 or "3", you are not allowed to mess with other editors' comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember another odd user -- I think it was "Bred Ivy" or something -- who came out of nowhere and started kvetching about grammer in a pretty characteristic way, and I wondered if he might be a sock. I also note that "Bred Ivy" is an anagram of "Drive By". —Steve Summit (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * was a pure troll. might not be either a pure troll nor the same user. But Bred Ivy would have been indef'd if he hadn't disappeared on his own (under that ID, anyway), and if DriveBy is not careful, he could be driving down that path too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to accept that someone who wrote the following posts -, , , ,  -  is only 12 years old.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe unless he's reporting it in hexadecimal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An anagram is no reason for the comparison, in my humble opinion. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, experience indicates otherwise. Regardless, it's odd how Bred Ivy magically turned up here, after over a 3-month abscence, just when he was being talked about. Must be psychic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's much simpler than that. Lots of people read Wikipedia and its various tentacles who choose not to get involved as editors.  I'd warrant that most banned editors continue to read WP, at least for a while.  Some so keenly feel the need to continue making their invaluable contributions to world knowledge that they arrange to be reincarnated.


 * Actually, on a more serious note, I wonder who will be the first WP editor who really is a reincarnation of a deceased editor. We're probably in the zone where that's possible now.  Assuming reincarnation actually occurs.  The ex-editor would have had to die very early on, like 2001, and the newby would only be 11 tops now, but still ...   Hey, DriveByWire claims to be only 12, so maybe ... --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why says an extracorporeal time line has to have a certain slant? I'm not sure about the details of certain religions, but a person could be reincarnated before or during their previous incarnation; indeed, there's one Atman and the rest is done with mirrors. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have missed it but I don't think BredIvy complained much about grammar or spelling, instead randomly complaining about some post Tango made and other similar stuff. It is clear neither is new. Perhaps Steve Summit is thinking of Cerlomin, who we pretty much established was a sock of another editor who liked to complain about spelling/grammar but who was only temporarily blocked (and both of them disappeared anyway). Speaking of anagrams, is somewhat revealing. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Yup, trolol. DMacks (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To DMacks and Nil's revelations, I can only say this: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Joke policy
Do we need a joke policy? I've seen numerous threads over the past few months where the ratio of joke-to-content is unbalanced, where the jokes come well before the good answers to, and where OPs who complain about jokes getting in the way of their answers are told that they, not the jokester, have committed the faux pas, by complaining.

Hey, I'm not opposed to a little community. Joking does wonders and we're all volunteers. But I sort of thing some really basic courtesy is called for. Some thoughts:


 * 1) Don't start with a joke. If the question hasn't gotten at least one or two serious answers to it, don't start off with the bad puns or small quips. (Possible exceptions are questions that have no possible serious answers, though even then, tread lightly, give it a few days. Just because you don't think a serious answer is possible doesn't mean it's impossible.)
 * 2) Keep the jokes pretty inoffensive. The Ref Desk is used by people of all ages, genders, sexes, classes, races, nations, languages, religions, and what have you. Don't post something that you wouldn't say in a room full of diverse strangers. Don't let the relative anonymity of the Internet turn you into a jerk, inadvertently or not. We're not censored, but we don't have to be pointlessly offensive. If it's considered racy in your culture, it's probably worth just keeping under your hat. (We're not asking you to try and guess what's offensive in all cultures, but it's a healthy assumption that if it's racy in yours, it may be truly offensive in another's. There's really no need for that either way.)
 * 3) If the OP complains about the joking, just apologize and/or cease and desist. Engaging in a long, drawn-out conversation about whether your joke was appropriate or not is not productive for the Ref Desk's overall goal of answering questions. A simple, "OK, sorry about that" will do, and nobody will think less of you for being big about it. It really doesn't matter if your joke was or was not appropriate or not. Part of being civil is recognizing when you're irritating the very person you're supposed to be helping and just backing off.

I'm not a fan of bureaucratic bloat, so I'm not really proposing that this go through some sort of long, drawn-out process of agreement and hemming and hawing, but I will just put it forward as a suggestion for best practices. Again, I'm not opposed to a bit of joking and whatnot — I do it myself. But I do think we should not let the chatty, community aspects overshadow the ultimate justification for the Reference Desk — because Wikipedia is not a chatroom.

To use the physical metaphor, I'd be pretty irritated if I went to a real-world library reference desk with an earnest question, and all the people behind the desk did was make little puns, trying to one-up each other, without actually answering the question. Just my two cents; not trying to single any one user out in particular, this is something I've seen coming from a lot of people. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr. 98's proposal in general. I think this is really just a special-case restatement of WP:TONE.  If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk.  We might do well to more aggressively remove unencyclopedic contributions, whether by regular or non-regular contributors.  Nimur (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing goes a bit far, and should only be used in extreme cases. Hatting is sufficient in most cases.  Otherwise, you could end up with people deleting any contribution which they feel doesn't have adequate sources, as "nonencyclopedic", leading to edit wars.


 * I also disagree with "If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk". For example, if a user posts a homework problem he did and got marked wrong, and wants us to help find the error, that's not the type of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia, but it does belong here.  There are many other examples.  StuRat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Helping with the homework question in the tone of an encyclopedia is fine; only the content need be different. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The tone needs to be different, too. For example, you wouldn't use the first person when writing an article, but it's fine when answering a Ref Desk Q: "When doing such a problem, I first...". StuRat (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Reference_desk/Guidelines. It doesn't cover Mr. 98's third point though. I agree with that one too, and it could be added to the guidelines. No need to lecture an OP for complaining about the jokes. Obviously, in these cases, the joke wasn't appreciated. Swallow it and move on. Don't berate the OP for not sharing your sense of humor or for having the cheek to insist on an answer rather than a joking post which doesn't include an answer). ---Sluzzelin talk  01:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/cx2) I agree with Mr.98. Matt Deres (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to 98's physical example, I'd be amused if a ref desk at a library was as lively and responsive as you describe, as long as my question did get answered. The Ref Desk is "staffed" by volunteers, so, Nimur, talk of "aggressive" action, however well intentioned, is completely inappropriate absent an "aggressive" cause. All that said, most of what is proposed is fine. You might consider putting it up for reference in the same way the we sometimes use | Kainaw's parameters for "Is this medical advice?". I doubt you will get agreement for anything stronger than that. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I Also agree, jokes should not interfere with answering the questions. A possible exception could be if a joke is actually to the point and would contribute to addressing the posted problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree on the 3 points raised, but as noted, more appropriate as an essay. On #1, if all you are going to post is a joke as the first response, don't bother - though a combined joke and refutation ("this can't be answered as science does not address this question, but I would use a pink flying unicorn") is OK. The humour:content ratio ebbs and flows over time, it shouldn't be overwhelming in any thread or from any one user, and beyond just hatting bits of a thread, approaching individual editors on their own talk pages to calmly and politely discuss the level and appropriateness of their RefDesk humour quotient is always the best way to go. Even if they tell you to screw off, you can just say your piece and give them time to think about it. If there was going to be a "policy", that is what I would write up: the 3 principles above, discuss on user talk first. And my own thing too - use -small- notation and indent an extra level so that it's very very clear you are stepping out from the actual purpose of the desks and not taking yourself seriously when you make a joke. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think worrying about jokes when we don't worry about editors wanting to poison themselves or others is itself a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think bringing up one's own pet peeve in a completely unrelated thread is disruptive and narcissistic, but you don't see me banging on about it here there and everywhere. Franamax (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you on about? My merely expressing the fact that your (pl) concern with jokes--but not the irresponsible giving of advice on deadly matters--is a huge inversion of priorities is hardly "disruptive".  As for jokes as such, humor is often the only appropriate response to some of the absurd questions posted here, the outright trolling, and especially self-important moralizing.  Something about the mote in your own eye, pal. μηδείς (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you're referring to, sorry. Please feel free to start your own thread if you have a separate point to make. Please don't try and hijack this one, though, just because you think it is less important than other issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. There are many places on the internet for posting jokes, but the Reference Desk is not one of them. If someone absolutely must post a joke it should be after the OP of a question has gotten a good answer, and should not detract from the question or lower the tone of the thread AvrillirvA (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And if there is no "good answer"? Or if it's a really dumb question? Or trolling? Or completely unclear? The other day we had a post that said "uv". Nothing more. Please suggest a "good answer". HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I assumed they wanted to know about ultraviolet light, and gave them the link to our article. I could be wrong, but it's a reasonable guess. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! If the question has no good answer, the answer is "There is no good answer because _____." If the question is actually dumb, the answer should be easy. If it's trolling, ignore or hat etc. If it's completely unclear, say "This is not clear because _____." If it's funny, say, "This is funny because _____." or make a joke which explains the humor by being both another example of the same joke, and funny in a different way. If too many of the most recent questions are funny, treat them as trolling. If it's offensive, say, "This is offensive because _____." 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, if there is no reasonably good answer to give, it's pretty simple: don't answer at all. Leave it for someone else, or just let it lie fallow. Mingmingla (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mingmingla's response is generally mine on these sorts of things. If one absolutely does feel the need to engage the un-engaging, a simple, "What's your question?" might suffice. I still don't see humor (especially mocking humor) as the answer, here. I'm not sure who you imagine is on the other end, but it could easily be a child, a confused elderly person, someone with a disability, someone whose computer is acting up in strange ways, or whatever. There's no need to assume they're a troll or a jerk or an idiot. AGF. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mocking is not acceptable, whether done jokingly or in any other way. The whole thing whereby people decide, explain, pontificate or judge what is or is not funny, is completely beside the point of humour.  When you hear something that makes you laugh or smile, your experience is joy, which you express by laughter or a smile.  Transferring that onto the thing that caused it, and saying you "find" it funny, is just that, transference.  But humour is far more complex and subtle and individual than that.  One joke might make 10 people laugh, but cause distress to 10 others.  The first lot would say it was funny, the second lot would disagree.  And who would be right?  Answer: None of them, because it's not about whether it is or is not funny.  It's solely about whether a listener does or does not experience joy.


 * If someone makes a post here that was not intended as any sort of joke, but still had the effect of producing laughter in a number of editors, how would we deal with that? Would we say it was inappropriate because of the effect it had?  The answer is obvious.  So really, it comes down to the intent of a post.  If the intent clearly is to make people laugh, that seems to be not-OK in the eyes of some people, but if there was no such intent (whether laughter was actually produced or not), that's perfectly all right (as long as it was appropriate in every other way).  Is this a sane basis for assessing the appropriateness of posts?  When did it become not-OK to actually want to spread joy?


 * Sure, sure, we have to remember the purpose of the ref desks, and keep them a welcoming place and not inadvertently drive people away, and keep things in perspective. But that can all be achieved in an atmosphere that is not as dry as dust and boring as batshit.  Who would want to work in a workplace where no communications are ever permitted that are not strictly about the work, and nobody ever laughed?  This isn't a Dickensian workhouse.  I've never worked in a place where there was a formal policy about joke-telling, specifying what jokes are acceptable or not, and under what circumstances they may or may not be told, and I'd hate to see such a Stalinist policy instituted here.  I have worked under policies that promote mutual respect and forbid racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise inappropriately discriminatory behaviour; and I've certainly worked in environments where the serious purpose of the team and the pressing nature of the work meant that people didn't have the time or inclination to be joking every 5 minutes - but there were still regular opportunities to have a break and let our hair down and let off a little steam and have a laugh.


 * Well, guess what, the Ref Desks are not even a workplace to begin with, and it's not like we're all working on some grand project that has a budget and a deadline and there are chains of command. People have their own reasons for being involved here, but in 100% of cases there is an absence of compulsion - other than their own inner drives.  People often turn up at work every day because in a very real and practical sense they have to, and not necessarily because they particularly enjoy the work or the environment.  These Ref Deks are the exact opposite of that.  There is zero compulsion, and we keep on turning up only because we DO particularly enjoy the work and the environment.  Having some rules is important, but it's so easy to overdo it.  Zealots can do just as much harm in their way as vandals and trolls do in theirs.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What Jack said. Also, if this is to continue, shouldn't people be giving diffs?  And funny '98 should mention computer acting up.  If you see an edit summary by me that makes no sense it's because my computer decided to hit the RETURN key all by itself before I was finished typing. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We do need to be aware of medical implications. It's a well-documented fact that many people have died laughing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a few jokes and a bit of banter is OK once the thread has developed. What I find annoying, in my experience of using the ref. desk from time to time, is when the first person to answer does so with no real intention of being helpful but simply to show how witty or clever they are. That does occasionally happen. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, Bugs did make me laugh. Most of us (myself certainly included) don't wish for a boring, dry workhouse. I don't think we need to dichotomize into "no joke is ever appropriate" vs "all jokes are always appropriate because no one gets to decide what's appropriate". I think the key reason these (and other) threads pop up occasionally has to do with how certain types of posts produce distraction. When a distraction from the question or topic is presented before a relevant reply has been posted, a number of askers may feel turned off and not taken seriously. We've received such feedback multiple times since the desks exist.
 * Of course I too keep turning up because I enjoy the work and the environment. Once again, I point to point three of "Steve Summit's take on the reference desk" :
 * "The purposes of the Reference Desks are [...] To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition."
 * "[...] I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those of us who participate are actually here. It's all well and good to state highfalutin virtuous altruistic principles for these desks, but people aren't going to come here and volunteer their time and expertise to answer questions unless they enjoy doing it. So their enjoyment is important. In fact, to the extent that a certain amount of humor and friendly banter are enjoyable, those aspects are important, too. They certainly can't be denied and shouldn't be discouraged. But, again, they come at a lower priority: if (when) they come into conflict with the helping-the-project and helping-the-questioners goals, they've got to give way first."
 * I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I go along with all that (while acknowledging that I do occasionally offend against the "answers first, jokes later" rule). --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for any new/special policy here - it should be uncontroversial to say that the purpose of these pages is to answer questions, and humor is welcome as long as it helps rather than hinders this activity. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I find lengthy discussions conducted all in small font to be probably ultimately more annoying than jokes. The usefulness of small font tagging for even single asides or off-topic comments is dubious at best, and entire sub-threads in small font are ridiculous... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What if a template like this existed, and could be encouraged instead of small tags? [Edit: my code for a collapsing "joke" template was removed because I did a half-assed job of it and broke something. Sorry Tango.] Like a self-imposed collapse (but not in bold text on a green background). Subsequent jokes could go inside the same collapse, all tidy-like. Has the advantage of clearly labelling the content "joke" to reduce possible distress. Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Better yet, offer editors the option of purchasing rose-tinted glasses which will make comments posted in joke-pink become invisible. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the small font convention is intended to make the off-topic joke less intrusive. The problem I have with this collapsing box convention is that it makes it more intrusive (when compared to small text). A collapsible box, even without bold text and bright background, draws attention to itself and cuts up the flow of thread. While such collapsible boxes do discourage contributing further to the off-topicness, I think it's outweighed by the disruptiveness of introducing such a box in the midst of a conversation. -- 71.35.99.136 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the template was properly made, it could be only as high as a normal line of text (reduce the padding) and the box could be indented like any other text (not sure how to do this, but removing "indent|0px" seems like a good start). So it would fit into the flow. Could remove the border, too, and give it a fixed small width, so it just says "joke" in small text with a "show" link right beside it. (I guess all that would entail an inner div and ... but anyway.) Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If this template existed it could be abused. It raises the reader's expectation of finding something funny. What they get in return for investing in an extra click on show may not fulfil expectation. There is also endless possibility for mischief in applying the template to posts by others. Some of the best humour is subtle humour that is not improved by painting a red nose on it. DriveByWire (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already a rule against modifying other people's posts, e.g. by collapsing them with the ordinary collapse template. And we already make disappointingly lame jokes. You may be right that these are less disappointing when kept in plain view. Card Zero  (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to any such uses of hidden text with a "show" button, for all the reasons mentioned. This device merely draws special attention to the content and tempts the reader with an almost irresistible "read me!". "show" is fine for factual content that you know you may or may not be interested in. 86.181.206.183 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to raise another point about jokes that I haven't seen expressed yet. I don't want to overstate it, but I'd like to point out that the use of friendly banter and in-jokes and hidden text wiki-links, etc. can serve to make newcomers feel nervous about participating. By creating a "culture" on the desks, we make it so that people must become part of - or at least deal with - that culture. This can be very off-putting, especially to people who aren't native speakers or who are unfamiliar with using technology at all, let alone the use of wiki-markup. Like I said, I don't want to imply that there's this horrible hegemony in place, where newbies have to run a gauntlet of social pressure to take part. But there is a barrier of sorts, and it probably becomes more noticeable when we get bogged down with engaging in snappy patter with each other (never mind cracking jokes about spelling or grammar mistakes, however good-naturedly). What we see as two regs engaging in some one-upsmanship punning, the newcomer may see as a kind of hazing that they fear to be subjected to. To return to the physical model, when we go to a real-life library help desk, we know it's not a corporation, but we probably want to deal with someone who has some small sense of decorum and we'd probably hesitate before walking up to someone who appeared more interested in reciting his favourite Monty Python skit than manning the desk. In fact, we'd probably surmise that the guy wasn't actually there to help us. Which was the entire point of having the desk in the first place, right? In RL, I chair a school council and a regional council in an area with a very diverse group of parents. It's truly been an education to me to see how easily people can be turned off by the subtlest hints of non-inclusion. I've already written longer than I intended, so I'll forbear the tedious examples I've witnessed; suffice it to say that, unless you've had to try to engage a wide variety of ethnically and socially diverse people, you probably won't grasp how easy it is to make someone think that what's going on is "more trouble than it's worth". This isn't an admonition on anyone in particular and I'll say for a third time that I don't think we've really gotten that bad at this, but it's something that I've learned (from personal experience) is good to bear in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed racist comment
I've removed this comment because it looks racist to me. Do people agree? If so, do people think we should take any further action? --Tango (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think any further action is needed, other than to keep an eye on the question, which seems to be drifting a little off-topic. The two comments previous to the one you removed (not StuRat's, the other two) make some rather sweeping generalisations about Muslim women and their ability to join in university life, but I think the posters were misinformed rather than mal-intentioned. The later comment didn't allow any doubt, so it's well removed. I don't think we should worry about further action though - now it's gone there's no lasting harm done. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not "racist". There's no such thing as a Muslim race. However, it's xenophobic and religionist and obscenely rude to the questioner. So it's fair to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment was more about the countries the poster assumes a Muslim must be from rather than the religion itself, which is why I said "racist". It doesn't really matter, though, "xenophobic" will do. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Terms like "vicious" and "hateful" come to mind also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the removal. Other RD posts from today include this (since removed) and this - some sort of user talk page warning about making more constructive contributions may be in order ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are more like crude jokes. I expected to hear a "rimshot" after each of them. The editor's been here 5 years, but I don't recall running across him before. Has he always been like this, or is this a recent change of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at the editors talk page reveals that it is far from the first notice about inappropriate behaviour at the ref desk that this editor has received. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be the first that was so clearly unacceptable, though. There is a trend we need to keep a very close eye one, definitely. I asked about further action because I thought people might feel we should take a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of thing. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no question it was correct to remove it, and also the user should be cautioned if that has not already been done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted to the user's talk page to inform them of this discussion. If they read this thread, they'll know we consider their actions unacceptable. Is that sufficient? --Tango (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's been warned, then that should be good enough for now. If he does it again, take him to a neutral corner and sic an admin on him. He's been here 5 years. He should know better than to say what he said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Myles325a's history, I can see 3 distinct issues.
 * One is they seem to like to try and use the RD to get feedback on whatever random theory they came up with. Some of these like Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 October 28 and Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 January 10 we can perhaps provide some meaningful feedback via references but in other cases like Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 19 and especially Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 April 21 the theories are just so bizzare that it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing suitable for the RD.
 * A second issue is historically at least, they seem to have posted followups that may be annoying or even offensive as they appear to berate respondents sometimes because of the Myles325a's own misunderstandings or inability to understand the responses. (There's of course nothing wrong with saying you don't understand a response or saying it's wrong or confusing but many of the OPs replies come across as unnecessarily incivil or attacking of the respondents particularly given they are the one asking for help.) Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 February 15 is a clear example but Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 May 10 Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 August 7 (also see the 'Joining Interplanetary Federation' question). While these aren't the sort of thing likely to lead to blocks in themselves (rather just people declining to help Myles325a in the future), given the other civility problems and behaviour on the RD they don't helpo.
 * The third issue appears to be offensive remarks directed at countries or people based on their places of origin or other things like religion or English ability, e.g. this response seems unnecessary inflammatory even given the apparent soapboxing of the OP (even if the followup  made things worse). (While joking about another country does happen, it's the sort of thing which can cause offense and problematic followups particular if the wording is poor. In a real discussion on the advances of India, it would generally be fine to point out ongoing problems but as said earlier, the post seems unnecessarily inflammatory.) Another more extreme example of course is what started off this thread (even if considering the nature of the question, I'm guessing there's a fair chance the OP will never be back). A third arguably even worse example is where they attacked someone on their talk page  (from something that arose from the RD) which reached ANI Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671. While in all 3 cases the OP who was attacked misunderstood the purpose of the RD (although in the case that started this it was a harmless issue) but I don't think that excuses anything, particularly since IMO anyway Myles325a doesn't seem to always use the RD in the fashion intended.
 * BTW, while the name sounded familiar, I myself didn't particularly remember the responded but now I do remember their characteristic manner of posting follows in the form of OP Myles325a back live (or similar). (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, simply it's distinctive enough that I remember it so perhaps others will too.)
 * P.S. I removed as a BLP violation. If people want to joke about themselves, that's up to them but I think we should be wary of jokes about potentially identifiable living people even if they're people the person joking knows closely.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a particularly difficult question, but my first impulse is it implies that Wikiversity should include PeerWise (the question-and-answer database, not the routing optimization protocol.) Characterization of the unfamiliar should not include phrases such as "toilet (sorry, nation)" so I tentatively agree with the removal, but suggest a wider issue concerning international relations, diplomacy, education, and income equality. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand most of the words I just read, but not what they are supposed to mean in sequence. "But suggest a wider issue concerning...income equality"? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We just had an exchange student basically looking for advice, and someone suggested Wikiversity. That would be great advice if it had PeerWise or better (i.e. open source.) But Wikiversity doesn't even have Moodle, which is what I suppose the open source better version of PeerWise would be based on. Anyway, so someone suggested study in Australia, and someone apparently took offense on the mistaken assumption that exchange students are bad, or unfair to natives, or whatever, and responded in what they thought was in kind. But the intention to offend was present so the removal was proper. The wider issue of income equality involves the reason that the Australian took offense to an exchange student. Normally I wouldn't be inclined to care, but in this case it does suggest to me that Wikiversity should be upgraded. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania
Any ref deskers currently in DC or coming to DC soon that would like to meet up? --Tango (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will you be issuing Nerf bats, or should we bring our own? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DC = Drag Costume ? It takes 2 2 tan go. DriveByWire (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Warshington", DC, most likely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Warshington Drag Costume. Sounds fun. DriveByWire (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the powdered wig. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C. (July 12–15).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed comment
I've just removed a comment from WP:RD/M. I'm sorry if it seems I'm being overly sensitive, but I had a refresher course in Child Protection Awareness training as part of my job last night, and I can tell you that there is no such thing as too sensitive in matters like this. I'll head over to the page of the user who left the comment to apologise in person, but just wanted to leave this note here in explanation. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And yeah, hatting that is a good idea. Ta. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing it altogether would be an even better idea. My comment was really an effort to promote that.  I am not offended that you felt a need to remove it. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the answers are good enough so far that hatting edges out removal. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to call an editor "you cretin" ?
Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth. The term cretin describes a person so affected, but, as with words such as spastic, idiot and lunatic, also is a derogatory word of abuse. DriveByWire (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not appropriate. I called the editor on it, but there's been no response.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jack do you mean this post from you? It ignored the grammatical point just made and instead you reacted provocatively to the perceived insult "you cretin". I think you muddied the water further by introducing a Biblical exhortation, apparently using the words of Jesus reported in Mat. 7:3-5. DriveByWire (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus called someone a cretin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't bringing this up several days later without any kind of notification to the editor in question stirring a bit? It was clearly a joke, perhaps not a very funny or tasteful one but there are more important things to be worrying about-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was a joke. It should have been in small letters so that everyone would understand, no doubt, and the joke would only be funny to those who had some experience with French, but it is just too blatant to be anything else. That's how I read it, in any case.Bielle (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC) So much for assume good faith. Bielle (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (The secret truth is I was mocking his Christianity, not his thyroid condition... μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))(This is a joke, Bielle. I assumed you knew the etymology of the word.)

Slow news day, Driveby? For what it's worth I had no problem with Jack's comment, and he was correct with the demand for an accent aigu if I was going to kid the guy about his barbarism. (An insult, presumably, to Barbaras.) I am waiting for driveby's apology to myself, Jack, and this board for trying to pick a fight. But I won't be back here to look for it. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. Adhering to common civility will probably prevent further need for you to "pick any fights" with this board or anyone else. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * barbarian, barbarism mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE root *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s. -- online etymology dictionary. The word has nothing to do with the Biblical reprieved prisoner Barabas "son of the father, master or teacher" Matt. 27:15-26. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@ DriveByWire: No, I didn't "ignore" the grammatical point Medeis made. Medeis was perfectly correct to bring to attention that coup d'état is pluralised by adding an -s to the first word and not the second. That correction per se needed no further comment from me or anyone. "React provocatively" is not an expression I'd accept here, but I did take issue with "you cretin". I didn't see anything joke-like about it, and I still don't. I don't even get the joke that everyone else seems to be in on, so can someone please come to my aid here?

Up above at "Joke policy", Medeis had used the "mote in your own eye" analogy on 2 July in a reply to Franamax. So, when I saw the lack of capital letter on the opening word of Medeis's post, and the lack of an acute accent on état, in a post that was correcting another editor's orthography and spelling - and apparently calling them a cretin to boot - I figured it was more than fair enough to reflect the mote/eye thing back at Medeis. So, no muddying of waters from this quarter.

You are the one who opened this thread by asking whether it's appropriate to call people cretins. Now, you're taking issue with me, the only editor who seems to have had a strong objection to the use of such language. What is your agenda here? Entrapment? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In respect of Medeis's joke: Medeis first denied that what I saw as a joke was a joke, and accepted Jack's correction. Then she/he did make a joke, addressed to me, on the word "cretin". It shares a Latinate origin with the word "Christian", which in French (which was a part of the whole shtick) is pronounced in a similar way to "cretin", having no "s" (chrétien). It is always a bad idea to try and explain a joke. And I didn't get it right away, either. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From the beginning, I believe Medeis's remark to have been hyperbole for effect. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If this be so, then Medeis must win the "extremely obscure joke of the month" award. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now too. Dangerous stuff, this humour thing.  Please handle with extreme care.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A good example why joking must be limited on the boards, I think. Mingmingla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A half a box of bad eggs is still a box of bad eggs. I think it's a much better argument for an editor, before they post their joke, considering whether it could possibly be misinterpreted.  This means putting oneself in the shoes of others and hearing with their eyes. :)  This case shows that the reasoning "It's so over the top, there's no way anyone could think I was serious, so there's no need for me to make any overt sign that I'm joking" does not work.  And WP:AGF doesn't assist here either.  AGF does not require readers to assume that a post that looks for all the world like a direct insult or a direct personal attack is actually the editor's idea of humour, and to let it through.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @JackofOz: I said that you "ignored" the grammatical point made by Medeis because although you indented your response directly under Medeis' post you neither confirmed nor denied her point, and instead merely characterized her negatively as being in a nit-picking mood. Now, days later, you say you accept her point about "coups" not "coup". That's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that. I say that listing faults in someone's action may be ok but ascribing them to that person's mental state or "mood" is a provocative reaction (especially when addressing a lady, but you didn't hear that from me). I don't get the cretin=chrétien joke either. I think it is an afterthought that only serves to convert the abuse "you cretin" into an admitted mockery of a person's religion, and neither action is civil. When you indent your post in a particular thread under a particular question, it has to be judged in that context and no reader should be expected to check what Medeis said to someone else somewhere else....you don't give many diffs, do you? Therefore your "mote in the eye" expression comes across as a vague incivility towards Medeis. Now you have explained where it came from, it seems your formulation owes its long-term sourcing to Jesus via St. Mathew and its short-term motivation is your wish to snap back at Medeis by reflecting her words. That looks muddy to me. It is clear that you are not the only editor who finds Medeis' post objectionable but you need not have inflamed the issue as you did with your mixed message, and you could instead have been the first to raise it in a calm way on this page.


 * We should spare a thought for the editor whom Medeis called a cretin. Rmhermen is informed of this discussion and I surely speak on behalf of the desk editors in expressing our apology to Rmhermen. DriveByWire (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's diffs you're after, particularly in relation to others' mental states or moods, try this for size.
 * I must rush now. I have to dash off a quick thank you note to the Cornish Ogre, and the mails won't wait. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Diffs are best used like footnotes to substantiate or exemplify something stated in one's post. When you have a moment, please explain how it is helpful here to "reflect" a post of mine that was given in a different context on a different page (your own). I remember that you reacted strangely at that time, hence my bewilderment at that diff appearing now. DriveByWire (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The rules of indentation have recently been the subject of talk on the ref desk itself, but it is very clear that many, many, many people are not aware of them (they were characterised by one editor as "unwritten rules", which is certainly not the case), or are aware but choose to ignore them. I myself sometimes prefer to act in flagrant violation of the indentation rules, when it suits the occasion to do so.  Like language, we might think we prefer everyone to always and in all circumstances talk and write the way the prescriptivists prescribe, but we have to actually work with the stuff the descriptivists describe, because people have a funny knack of working out for themselves what works best.  Besides, if everyone always talked and wrote only the way the prescriptivists prescribe, the human race would have died out millennia ago as a result of mass suicide occasioned by excruciating boredom.


 * You came to my talk page and posted "These questions will serve you as a reality check". You did not address that remark to anyone.  You did indent it under StuRat's previous post, which might mean you were talking to StuRat, or, given the above, it might not.  Regardless, anyone (C) with any sense of courtesy would not just inject themselves into a conversation between A and B, on either of their talk pages, without at least making it unambiguous to whom they are addressing their remarks.  Opening with the name of the editor they are addressing is normally considered de rigeur in these situations.  Otherwise, it can be reasonably inferred their remarks are addressed generally to all the participants in that conversation to which they were not previously a party.  Or, it can be reasonably inferred they're addressed specifically to the owner of the talk page.  I chose the latter of those 2 reasonable assumptions.  It's not my job to check all the previous posts of interlopers (you) to see what if any history they may have had with my interlocutor (StuRat), and if I may quote your own words here: "... and no reader should be expected to check what [Medeis] said to someone else somewhere else".  Further, you are not the incarnation of an earlier editor with a cuddly name or any other name - are you; so that wasn't a factor I could have taken into account in assessing to whom you were talking.  Given all that, my assumption that you were talking to me was a perfectly valid one.


 * Your link was to a page headed Bipolar Mania Test. I did not read it, as I assumed the tacky and childish point you were making was encapsulated in the title alone.  My response to that was, under those circumstances, remarkably measured and controlled, if not without a soupçon of irony.  It was not a "reaction" at all, and it wasn't "strange".  But it was conditioned by the earlier goings on in this Ref Desk talk page thread.  You've gone on and on about my supposed ignoring of Medeis's grammatical point. I explained why I fully accepted that point when it was made and saw no need to make any comment on it, then or since.  But now you say "that's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that".  If you have no opinion of it, why did you make a point of making a point of it after I answered your opening question?  This thread was supposed to be about the inappropriateness of Medeis's use of "you cretin".  (That issue has been resolved here and elsewhere, so that's history now.)  Yet you, the questioner, (a) have engaged in equally inappropriate behaviour with your bipolar link, and (b) have massively hijacked your own thread, to make it not about what Medeis wrote, but about me and my initial response to what Medeis wrote, at the time he wrote it.  It's hard to believe it was ever about Medeis at all.


 * Do you begin to get why I have suspected your motives ever since post no. 3 of this thread, and why I am not disposed to show you any of the bountiful generosity for which I am world-famous, but have extended only the obligatory courtesies to you?


 * We are all responsible for the words we actually utter and the effects they produce, particularly here where the words are all we have. Our intention is not even a close second. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Verbal diarrhea. Read it all. Doubt if anyone else bothered. The mania test is also linked by Wikipedia article editors who find it within WP:RS. I suggest you read what is offered there. (It's nothing to be afraid of, just 5 self-rating questions with an automated response so no one will ever know the result.) It could actually be useful to someone whose grasp on reality includes having unstoppable evil minions and gloating over an imagined power to cause Aspro to stumble. I think you are safe but you can reassure everyone by more posting about how everything is about you, vulnerable as you are to those with an agenda to entrap you, and an even longer essay on the indignities that a saint suffers. Such as being told that you are NOT world famous and that making other people wrong (or disparaging their editorial effort as "nit picking") doesn't make anyone right. DriveByWire (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will allow the "quality" of the above to speak for itself. Me, I'm off for second and third helpings of Baked Troll à la nouvelle-hollandaise.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  10:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, DriveByWire is now indef'd, and both he and his shadow Bred Ivy are being discussed at Sockpuppet investigations/Light current. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should make a comment. I certainly wasn't offended, seeing it as an attempt at a joke - especially after I looked up the correct plural, per the American Heritage Dictionary: . Rmhermen (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories"
This line, on the main reference desk page, looks a little out of place, no? It's not a sentence, doesn't even have an end mark, and appears to begin on a new line for no reason, placing the word "here" (from "Ask here!") on a line by itself. Do we even need that line, and even if we do, couldn't it be formatted in a more visually-pleasing manner? dalahäst (let's talk!) 03:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a qualifier for the Miscellaneous Desk, formatted in a similar fashion to the qualifiers for the other desks, except that, instead of single words, it is a phrase. What would you suggest would work better? Bielle (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, I would suggest doing away with either the qualifier itself or "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!", so that the link to the desk only has one block of text beneath it. An alternative would be to place the "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!" beneath the qualifier, in smaller text, and wrap it in parentheses, so that it doesn't look like it's part of the qualifier, does not occupy the space occupied by the qualifier for all the other desks, and doesn't stand out so much. But hey, I get a little (okay, very) obsessive about design and layout, haha dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you could always try it out, assuming you can do so without breaking the page. The worst that will happen is that you are reverted, and then we all come back here to talk. Personally, I prefer your second suggestion, but am not troubled either way. You've been around long enough not to be run off in a huff (horse drawn) or a snit (motorized) if someone objects. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put the second alternative in. And hey, running off in any way, be it motorized or horse drawn, is better than exploding in everyone's face, then playing victim and accusing the reverter of "harassment" because I don't like what they did. dalahäst (let's talk!) 05:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but I don't get the feeling you would do that either. My design sense says that the "Ask here" should be slightly closer to the preceding line of type. The small type in the standard spacing looks a bit lost. Just an idea! Bielle (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried eliminating the line break between the qualifier and the "ask here" line, but it ended up looking more awkward, because the text flows onto a fourth line again, as it did before I changed anything. If someone objects to the current version, we'll see about messing with it some more, but I think it works for now. dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It currently reads: "Questions that don't fit in any of the other categories (Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!)" This seems a little redundant to me. I'm also not a big fan of the exclamation mark here — it seems a little too imperative. Personally I think the first sentence ("Questions...") is probably enough, and an improvement over "Subjects." --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree! That exclamation mark is quite out of place!  Reminds me of Disney cartoons, where every utterance ended with an exclamation mark unless it was a question!
 * Also, what if a question had relevance to both Computers/IT and Science, but not to any of the other desks. Are we asking them to ask it on Miscellaneous just because they couldn't quite decide between Computers and Science?  Or should they come to Misc to explain their question and ask for advice about which other desk would be more appropriate, wait for an answer, and only then go and ask it on either Computers or Science?  Either of those scenarios seems sub-optimal.  Isn't it best to leave it up to individuals' good sense to make a reasonable stab at the best desk, without being routed through a desk that is clearly irrelevant?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remove the "Ask here" and all that, and trust the user to muddle something out. If something is on the wrong desk, we will move it. It's not that hard. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I considered going ahead and removing the "ask here" anyway, though the little discussion above led me to think that perhaps it was best leaving it in for now. I figured since I hadn't even discussed changing "subjects" to "questions", I'd just change that first and see what people thought. I've gone ahead and removed the small line of text entirely now, as well as added the word "for" in front ("for questions…"). Feel free to remove "for", of course, if you don't like it. dalahäst (let's talk!) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure
The ref desks are different. They are popular. They are fun. They are also, IMO, a little out of control sometimes. Trolls and jokesters abound. So, I wonder if anyone would like to discuss some possible reforms to the ref desk process. I’ve tried to narrow down some talking points to kick-start discussion: I’m sure the above is lacking to some degree, and likely biased based on my own perceptions/opinions. If any of the above questions are loaded questions, I apologize...it was unintentional. I am just hoping to start a community discussion in a central location about improving the desks. I hope others will join in with their own ideas. Ditch &#8733; 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Are the ref desks necessary and in the scope of Wikipedia’s goals?
 * 2) If so, is there room for improvement, or is it working fine “as is”?
 * 3) Should we create more specific and precise rules regarding responses to questions answered on the desks? For instance, is answering “from personal experience” okay ? Or should all answers include a verifiable source?  Or something in-between?
 * 4) Would the desks benefit from some trusted users being appointed as clerks to keep threads on track and in scope? If so, how would they be selected; what “powers” would they have; and how would a clerk system be enforced?


 * Responding to the last point first, creating a clerk system isn't the solution. Far better would to be establish clear guidelines for the community to enforce. Moving to point 3, generally mandatory reliable source rules are going to interfere with providing answers, if you know the right answer, but can't find a good source, is leaving a question unanswered really best? The bigger question is what role does the refdesk system fill? Is it to direct readers to some place they might find an answer to their question? Or is it to anwser the question/offer advice? Monty  845  01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Settled long ago. Do I need to list the conclusion?


 * 2-3) Always room for improvement, but more rules isn't necessarily an improvement. We have too many to read already.


 * 4) I can't imagine how we would chose such users, considering how we all seem to disagree so much. Also, this would take away from the idea of everyone having an equal say, and might also limit the ability of anyone to fix certain problems, like a poorly formatted question lacking a title. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat, could you link to where there was a discussion of whether or not the RD is within the scope of wikipedia? It's not that I doubt you, I'd just really like to read the arguments. Even though I find the RD to be a lot of fun, I've often wondered how it can be justified as part of wikipedia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's just one discussion, but there are many more in the archives: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_20. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks StuRat. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please, no more rules, guidelines, policies, mantras, etc. We don't need more leaders, admins, managers, or clerks.  And I don't see why everything here on the desks needs a reliable source.   If someone asks about a math problem on the math desk, do we really need to supply a source to remind them of the order of operations?  Why not just say "Hey, you forgot your order of operations.  Parenthesis comes before exponents."  This is of course a rudimentary example but I hope you see my point.  Dismas |(talk) 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And if you take the hours required to read through each of the many so-called sources, you'll find that many don't actually say what the person who posted the link claims they say.  Such sources are worse than useless, they are a massive waste of time.  If we don't have a good source which actually supports a claim, we shouldn't include any sources. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So we should just take your word for it that you know what you're talking about. Excuse me, but that's done elsewhere, namely on Yahoo answers.  I guess we can start "voting" on the best answer.  What's wrong with responding: "Hey, you forgot your order of operations. Parenthesis come before exponents." Is the linked article too convoluted for the OP to comprehend.  Maybe that's a problem with the article, not the answer. Should verifiability completely ignored.  Ditch &#8733;  02:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless you have good reason to think that somebody is wrong, or lying, then yes, you should assume good faith. And many of our math and science articles are utterly incomprehensible, due to being written by, and for, mathematicians and scientists.  Order of operations might actually be simple enough to read, though.  What I'm saying is that the claim that "parenthesis come before exponents" should be believed, unless you have actual proof to the contrary, and posting a link to a book, say, proposing various alternate orders of operations, would just be wasting everyone's time.  StuRat (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many questions basically require the answerer to engage in synthesis. Simply directing the OP to a source is very unhelpful a lot of the time. If you can answer the question off-the-cuff and follow up with sources latter, then that's better than mucking around looking for sources and then coming back to find someone else has already answered the question. And if the OP has tried to answer the question themselves, chances are the answer won't be found on the most obvious wikipedia entry or at the top of the list on google. If the RD should exist at all, then it can't be held to the same standards as articles in terms of citing sources. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you and I will have to disagree that answering solely "off the cuff" is the correct way to operate a respectable reference desk. You can answer the question anyway you want, just back it up with a source, or at least a way to verify what you are saying is correct. Ditch &#8733;  02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't this all a little backwards? If there a demonstrated reason to make a new rule/guideline/whatever then it makes sense to start a discussion on doing that. In this case it seems more like "hey, can anyone think of reason to make a new rule?". Trolls and jokesters are only an issue if they impede the functioning of the project. When that happends, it gets dealt with. More rules and regs will just drive people away. As it is there's so much for a first time asker to read before they post their question that they will either give up or just post anyway without reading the guidelines. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Guidelines would be for the responder not the OP. What's backward is the idea that anonymous people on the Internet can respond to questions, willy-nilly, yet with inherited authority from Wikipedia, which hangs its hat on verifiable information.  Ditch &#8733;  02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The basic concept of Wikipedia is that, while there are individual vandals and idiots, the majority of editors will work to provide correct information. This is true both in articles and the Ref Desk.  If a responder makes a mistake, it will soon be corrected.  References are nice, when necessary, and available, but an answer can still be provided without them, in many cases. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a demonstratable problem with that? Have we received legal advise that Wikipedia is open to lawsuits because of unsourced answers on the reference desk? Is there even any evidence that answers on the reference desk inherit authority from the project itself? Or are these just imagined issues? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a small problem with that, see second pillar, specifically the part that says avoid stating opinion as fact. Ditch &#8733;  02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a dead link, but I think you mean WP:NEUTRAL. It applies to articles anyway, and as I said, the reference desk shouldn't be held to the same standards. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the link, thanks. And to what standards should it be held to?  Ditch &#8733;  03:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Bielle below; factually correct and ideally (but not necessarily) with citations. But what exactly are you suggesting? The current format is like a talk page. If you want sources for every answer then we should do what? Delete unsourced answers? Should the answerers collaborate on a subpage to form a consensus on what constitutes a factual response to the question, formulate it joinly with a consensus as to wording, and then submit it to the OP? Currently, the editors provide answers as best they can with a mixture of sourced and unsourced answers. Answerers will notify one another of mistakes in their logic or understanding of the subject matter. The OP is privy to the whole lot and obtains the answer by reading everything written and making the call for themselves as to who was providing factual information, what sources are trustworthy and who was just talking nonsense. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just don't see a problem here. Yes, there has been more joking around than usual, but only enough to bring up specific instances for chastisement, not a whole new set of rules. Regarding why this page is here, the questions answered on the reference desk often encourage editors to add that information to relevant articles. And if we got rid of the reference desk, I can assure you that all potential OPs will just go and ask their questions all over various Wikipedia pages. Regarding the reliability of our answers and whether being Wikipedia means we should hold ourselves to a higher standard: no. If someone is talking out of their ask, we can show them the door. But in the end, there's nothing we can do to help people who believe whatever they're told by a random person on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Um yes there is, we can provide a source that they can read backing up our claims to a response. Our articles are created by random people on the Internet. Ditch &#8733;  02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've often thought we should have a parallel "strict rules" Ref Desk, where no response is allowed except for answers with references. I suspect that most questions would go unanswered, but this would be good to show the value of the way it's done now. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exalctly. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See This AN/I discussion for the impetus for this discussion. Monty  845  02:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (afer ec x 4) This relates very much to a concern that's been on my mind lately. A sizeable chunk of the questions we get are not able to be answered with a reference of any kind.  Another chunk are questions for which references do exist, but we don't bother citing them.  Instead, we just provide the answer, or give hints if we think it's homework.  Many questions on Science and Mathematics are like this, but certainly not only them.  We are really a place where any questions at all can be asked.  Granted, we do have some specific exclusions as to what answers we will provide, but we still operate at a much broader level than something analogous to a library reference desk, as we so often pretend.  Library ref desks do not even give hints about how to tackle a mathematical problem, for example, let alone telling you what steps to undertake, let alone actually giving you the answer and all the working out; they might, on the other hand, direct you to a suitable text book.  Given this mismatch between what a library ref desk does and what we do, maybe we should give consideration to a rename.  I'm not suggesting that references should cease to be our stock in trade.  There must always be a clear set of rules about how we operate.  I'm suggesting that, since there is and always has been a looser dependence on references than our name might suggest, we change our name to reflect the reality of how we've always operated.  The Wikipedia Brains Trust, for example.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The real parallel to a reference desk at wikipedia is the search function. What the WP:RD does is more like a brains trust as you said. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but having 'leaders' will not absolve readers from the responsibility to think for themselves. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, those who claim we ought to have a rule are really saying they ought to be the ruler. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We have rules already, except that, being WP, we call them guidelines. Perhaps we need reminding of them, but we don't need more:
 * We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources. As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack or ad hominem. Many questioners will be newcomers, and the reference desk should be a friendly and welcoming place.

Bielle (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my point (order of operations example) seems to have been missed by some, I'll try to restate it to be more clear. Answers on the Math, Computer, and to some extent, Science desks are often very matter of fact.  Either the answer is correct or it is not.  They aren't like Humanities in that way.  If someone were to ask on the Computer desk if they can use the Acme C Compiler to compile Java, then I would expect a response such as "No.  They are separate languages and can't be compiled by the same compiler."  It's a fact that can't be disputed because it either is or isn't.  And you're likely not going to be able to point to a product description from the Acme company which says "Our C compiler can't compile the following languages..."  They'd have a list a mile long.  In fact, they likely wouldn't even discuss other languages.  Dismas |(talk) 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. And that's why the current guidelines say you should use a source, but their not required. It's just common sense. Even articles don't require sources for uncontoversial statements of fact. In your example above, you're answering from experience and you're drawing an obvious conclusion that may not actually be noted anywhere else. Obviously, there no need to include that sort of information in the actual article, but since that sort of thing is required in order to answer people's questions, there needs to be a little bit more room afforded to the RD. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure (arbitrary break #1)

 * If someone has observed a problem, then I would be happy to discuss possible solutions to it. As far as I am aware, however, the reference desks are working very well. --Tango (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem, is this. Monty linked to it above, but it should be in the original post that started this thread, so that people who contribute to the discussion on this page know what problems are being addressed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The RefDesk usually works OK. It assists with research, and corrals random questions in one place. It zaps obvious trolling questions, and responds to borderline cases with a minimal good-faith answer directing them elsewhere.  It's fun, for those of us who enjoy researching and like (trying) to be useful.  Occasionally it gets a bit out of hand.  This is usually picked up and policy reminders/discussion/hatting/redaction ensues.  The incident under discussion is one of those rare ones where it got extremely out of hand, IMO.  Actually, the OP did get something close to an appropriate answer, which would have been something like: "We can't help practically or give you any legal advice, but you are not the first person to be embarrassed by a cruel practical joke.  Talk to someone who can help you sort it out.  If you're a minor you can be protected from this kind of thing, so tell someone in authority that you trust, and they should be able to help you.  Goodbye and good luck."  Unfortunately there were also some inappropriate responses which appeared for approximately 90 minutes before the community dealt with the problem. There is a negative-ish reference on the ANI thread to the clique of regulars who edit here, but the flip side is that many RefDesk regulars know the policy well, and inappropriate postings do get dealt with, as this eventually was.  And among our regulars are some admins with tools if needed.  The banter and grandstanding can be irritating, but it rarely prevents the provision of an answer if one is possible.  When we regularly fail to spot and deal with inappropriate questions and responses within a reasonable length of time, that's when I'd agree we have a problem. The question for me is whether 90 minutes is reasonable.  (I like Jack's name change suggestion, btw).   -  Ka renjc 10:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditch - you are absolutely right that the RefDesks have run entirely out of control. They have fallen under local consensus, which believes it is appropriate to substitute original research for the role of a reference desk, which is to provide references. Beyond that, they have appropriated this space to create an internal chatboard, in violation of WP:MYSPACE. You will not, however, get agreement on this talk page, because it is flooded by refdesk partisans. Allowing the discussion about the problems of this little walled garden to take place on it's home turf was an error in tactic. The solution is to continue the ANI thread, until such time as the larger community agrees that answers that fail basic tenants, such as neutrality, verifiability, and seriousness should be removed by any editor. Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) @Hipocrite, that makes sense. Is the Village Pump also an option? What about Jimbo Wales' talk page? This seems like a problem that can be solved. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooh yes, a dramafest at ANI/VP/Jimbo's talk page - just what we need to improve Wikpedia ! Actually, I completely agree with . As points out above, we have RD guidelines and most RD contributors follow most of them most of the time. We are pretty good at dealing with trolls and inappropriate questions/responses, and for the occassions when self-policing isn't sufficient, then there are the usual escalation channels and community sanctions. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. As for alignment with Wikipedia's goals, the RDs are a key channel for attracting new readers and potential contributors to Wikipedia. In my book, the RDs do more to support the Holy Grail of editor engagement and promote a positive image of the encylopedia than any other non-article feature of Wikipedia. I am proud to be an RD regular. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While it seems tempting to have more rules and then to enforce these rules using experienced editors here, I think that this will lead to big disputes. It is inevitable that you get double standards with enforcement, which then leads to bad blood between editors. I've seen this happen at PhysicsForums, where they use such a model with strictly enforcing rules to prevent kooks from hijacking the forum. But that has led to the Moderators there behaving as the forum dictators.

The rules in practice do not apply to themselves, and popular posters don't get infractions for behaving badly. I, on the other hand, was kicked out for, believe it or not, staying too much on topic. The Mods are supposed to be always correct, if you politely disagree with someone about some math or physics issue, they tend to become angry. Over time that leads to a poisoned atmosphere and the rules are then applied in such a way that you always lose and they always win.

I strongly believe that what I experienced at PhysicsForums is a universal problem not specific to any shortcomings of the people there. THe same issue would manfest itself if the justice system were abolished and we would simply have have trusted members of the community as police officers, jury, judge, prosecutor and appeals judges at the same time. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Q: What would Socrates do?


 * A: We can't ask him; a self-appointed group of "concerned citizens" didn't like the free advice he was giving so they appointed themselves his inquisitor and voted to force him to commit suicide.


 * μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above talking points appear to be finding solutions before the exact nature of the problems are agreed upon. The debate for the existence of the desk itself is likely not something withing the scope of the desk itself to answer unbiasedly. By the existence of this thread, the answer to the second point is already room for improvement. The specific issue seems to be that a possibly trolling or inappropriate question was answered with an obviously trolling or inappropriate answer.

The reference desk already does a good job of correctly responding to questions for medical and legal advice, erring far on the side of caution. One possible response to the above problem would be to have this attitude “officially” applied to inappropriate or trolling questions and answers similarly to the medical and legal questions. This would probably be best accomplished by increasing the breadth of similarly unanswerable question topics at the top of the page. Sazea (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)‌
 * I strongly disagree with Hipocrite's take on things here at the reference desk. The claim that this space is used as a chatboard is demonstratably false. Forum style non-question posts designed to bring about general discussions are routinely deleted (such as here).
 * Perhaps the problem isn't so much with the reference desk as a whole, but more specific to the Miscellaneous desk. Questions that are outside the scope of the reference desks are generally removed quite quickly and with little debate when it's clear cut. If the question that resulted in the AN/I thread had been posted on the science desk, it wouldn't have lasted as long, and I doubt anyone would have attempted to answer it. But on the miscellaneous deak, it's a bit more ambiguous since the scope of that desk is just a catch all for anything that can't go on the other desks. I agree that we shouldn't just be answering any question anyone ever thinks up, or solving all of their personal issues, but rather keeping within the scope of the desk's subject area, and all desks' subject areas should be encyclopaedic. Looking at the Miscellanous desk right now, I can see a few questions that should have been on the other desks (like this one), a few that should have been refered else where on wikipedia (like this one), and a few that to my mind should have been deleted/hatted/not answered (like this one), and a few that were deleted/hatted/not answered (like this one). That doesn't leave much left over that is actally appropriate to answer and within the scope of that desk.
 * To that end, I think a better proposal would involve changing the way the scope of the miscellanous desk is defined, or removing it and possibly adding one or more desks with clearly defined scopes.203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting option. I just browsed through the Misc desk and I think you're largely correct that most of the questions would fit fairly well into Science or Computing (or nowhere at all). One grey area would be where Humanities ends and Misc begins; I've long thought that The Entertainment desk should be abolished in favour of those questions getting rolled into a new-ish "Arts and Humanities Desk"; perhaps expanding it further, into something like "Arts and Social Sciences" or some such would be the way to go. It sounds more official and less accepting of, well, chaff. For good or ill, though, I think removing our refuge for inappropriate questions would just force them back onto the Help Desk. Matt Deres (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the proposal you linked to above Matt, and I think it's a great idea. Rolling those questions onto one board, and reducing the number of boards by getting rid of the misc. desk would make the system a bit more usable. It would displace all of those questions on the misc desk; but hopefully they'd end up on the most applicable ref desk where they'll be either answered or deleted if they're outside the scope of that desk. No matter what, crazy questions that it's not appropriate to answer will be asked on wikipedia, it's just the nature of the beast. The RD shouldn't really be blamed when a lot of them happen to land here. Handschuh-talk to me 03:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of blame. The Main Page lets people know we exist, and invites them to come visit.  Given that high profile endorsement, we owe it to our users to make it work as well as we can.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the suggestion to get rid of the Misc. Desk. Not only is it an easy option for things that just don't seem to fit anywhere else, but it is a useful lightning rod for bizarre questions. (Some we can answer; some we can't; and some we choose not to.) Bielle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So we've got two questions on the misc board right now that have been hatted (and should have been deleted as obvious trolling when they were posted) and twenty that ask legitimate questions and don't obviously belong elsewhere. As well as a troll and sock-puppet blocked.  That sounds like the system is working to me.  How does doing away with the misc board solve anything except a problem that doesn't exist?  Until we have some question posers who come here saying that have legitimate questions that no one will answer, or answer givers who provide diffs of actual problems that make it impossible for them to work, rather than just saying they have issues, we are just engaged in looking for trouble.  How exactly would doing away with the misc thread stop some future troll from pretending on another board that he had some issue with be portrayed as a homosexual, or asking why, if I remember correctly, the Italians are the Chinamen of Europe?  Maybe we could address something actually serious, like requests for advice on poison, before we worry about...whatever the aitch this thread is about?  μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of the miscellaneous desk won't stop trolls. I'm just suggesting that the undefined scope of the miscellaneous desk makes the editors who answer there a bit unsure when it comes to removing things that are inappropriate. Since that desk is there as a "catch all", it's hard for editors to point to how something is outside the scope and something else is not. I'm not dead keen on deleting that desk. Giving it a better defined scope would be a good first step though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think questions about titties, wienies, n*ggers and why X is so racist, American, gay, etc., would be obvious trolling or inappropriateness, to be removed wherever. I am not sure how one better defines miscellaneous, though. In any case, answer givers are not forced to respond to questions they find merely ridiculous. It is actual legal and ethical liability we should worry about--the latter involving questions of harm.  The problem there lies mainly with questioners, but also partially with editors, some of whom will insist on the right to answer any question because it's fun. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The non-question that I mentioned above, "Debate", looks to me like it's just asking to be deleted. People answered anyway, and I guess I don't really care enough to get involved trying to delete a question on people when there's obviously an ongoing back and forth there. And that debate going on there doesn't really hurt the project at all. But my point is that I doubt it would have lasted on the science desk, simply because on the science desk, the first thing you ask yourself as an answerer when you see a new question is "is this science?". On the miscellaneous desk asking yourself if the question is in fact miscellaneous is a bit pointless. And sometimes, like in the case from AN/I, the question is potentially harmful, so I don't think it would hurt to just consider how we might narrow the scope a bit to encourage editors to take down things of that nature. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was accurately labeled, asked a coherent question, and stimulated at least one good response with links, if not more. To compare that question to one on what sort of poison to leave lying around outside your house, or to risk drinking after you've already burnt your throat, seems a huge inversion of priorities.  I can't see deleting the former and letting the latter stand. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the problem isn't the questions but how we choose to answer them. Don't like them, or think they are based on false assumptions? Don't answer them, or give factual, non-judgemental answers that clarify the misconceptions.  Think they are trolls?  Bring it here for discussion and deletion.  If they don't violate medical or legal advice restrictions, and aren't banned users, we must assume good faith.  Not everyone knows that something will be offensive, even if you think they should.
 * I was crusing the archives, and for years, nothing has changed. Some editors get their knickers in a knot about little nothings (punctuation got one user a permanent ban), but if everyone just answers the questions and leaves the drama at the door, the problems generally go away.
 * This isn't a discussion forum, and we have people of many political stripes and cultural origins. We can't satisfy everyone.  So don't bring it up, unless it's the answer to a question.  Don't like rat poison or taxes or hippies?  We aren't the place to debate that.  We're just here to answer the damn question.  Mingmingla (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure (arbitrary break #2)

 * For (some) people (sometimes), (some) things—inappropriate questions, inappropriate answers, a bag of chips—can be irresistible. (http://www.fantasticdelites.com.au/)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a diff of a post I just made to the Misc desk at "What does he mean?". It gives my views on answering questions about relationship/romantic/emotional issues. Namely, we should NOT answer them. Our rules should explicitly exclude them, imo, as they do with legal and medical questions. In those cases, it's mainly a question of potential legal liability. But relationship/emotional questions need someone to sit down with the person, establish rapport, and gather FAR more information about the situation than we're typically provided with, before venturing any kind of suggestions. It's understandable that some people would come here for help with these sorts of issues, but we should not give in to the "They asked, and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't answer" thing. We're likely to do them more harm than good by providing glib answers to glib questions. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd almost agree with you, but the consensus above seems to be that not wishing to answer questions about poison has nothing to do with liability and is just a matter of likes and dislikes. That being the case, answering relationship questions can hardly be outlawed so long as people "like" doing it. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was getting at above. On any other desk, we would have said "this isn't about science/maths/entertainment" and just hatted it or whatever, but since it's miscellaneous, and that question is definitely miscellaneous, people feel fine to give an answer. We could narrow the scope of that desk by doing exactly what you suggested and adding a single line at the top of the page that says those types of questions are not to be asked or answered. I'm not sure myself, but would it better to specifically say that the questions cannot be relationship advice, or simply that they must be of an encyclopaedic nature? Or that it must be possible to give the answer i.e. not an opinion or advice or whatever but the exact one and only answer? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, someone hatted it. This is not a confused poster in good faith. It's a troll troll troll, plain and simple.  I'd like to see the results of a sockpuppet investigation. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Two editors answered. One knew it was a troll, the other knew the question was not in an appropriate forum. Clearly editors aren't grasping that this stuff needs to just get removed. That's the consensus. Can't we just put up a note as per above that reflects the consensus? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) @ Medeis: I'd rather we kept the issues separate.  Just imagine if you were walking along some footpath and some stranger came up to you said "You don't know me but I slept with this guy last week and now I think I might be pregnant but he won't answer my calls.  What should I do?".  Most people would say "Don't ask me, honey.  Best of luck", and keep walking.  Some might suggest they talk to a family member, friend, counsellor, doctor.  No sane person would go any further than that, based on such little information.  Yet that is exactly the sort of question we sometimes get.  Our response ought to be to delete the text of the question (exactly as we say we "usually" do with medical/legal questions but hardly ever carry out our threat), replacing it with a standard template along the lines of "We are not able to answer these types of questions.  Please consult an appropriate professional or talk with a trusted friend or family member".


 * I think it's time we were MUCH clearer about what we will and will not answer. If a question clearly falls outside our bailiwick, immediate deletion and templating is the kindest thing we can do.  It's only where it's not so clear-cut that we might entertain it for some time.  Let us direct our primary energies towards those questions that are appropriate to be asked here, and can be answered.  The rest, as they say, are not our problem, and the best approach to dealing with issues that don't concern us is to rid ourselves of them as quickly and decisively as possible.  I don't put it like that to be unkind or dismissive or disrespectful to genuine questioners, but it's best that people in genuine need know where they stand in relation to us so that they might look in more appropriate places earlier rather than later.  And, if they're trolls, so much the better that they're gone quickly.  Also, it sends out a very clear message that other ref desk users will read and take notice of - as long as they know we're going to be consistent in our application and will not be engaging in more empty threats like the "medical/legal Qs will usually be removed" we have at the top.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we change the header templates for all reference desks for asking questions and for answering questions as per those links to my userspace. I think it clarifies what constitutes an answerable question, where the scope of the reference desk ends and empowers editors to remove both questions and answers that fall outside of it. I make this proposal without prejudice as to the adoption of a new name for the reference desk, as per JackofOz's suggestion, to clarify its actual function. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IHaving supplied the short answer mentioned above, I see now it would have been better to remove the q completely or supply a standard answer. I would welcome a clarification of the guidelines for volunteers. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we are a reference desk, so if you can't supply a reference... Think of it this way: would you expect the question to be answered or answerable at a brick and mortar library info desk (and yes, we do get some really weird ones in real life)? If not, then the question is not likely to be appropriate.  Opinions need not apply, but any factual answers would work.  Since relationship questions generally have no factual answer, they aren't appropriate.  Legal and medical advice carry their own restrictions, so they aren't either.  Controversial (but not illegal) topics are acceptable, but do carry some risk of people getting bothered by them, so answer at your own risk.  Esoteric questions, ones that seem completely random or pointless, and other chaff might be trolling, but unless you know for sure, go ahead and AGF and answer them.  If you don't know, bring it here for discussion. I might be missing something else, but I think that's generally the idea.  If you aren't sure about what to do, then the best thing is probably just to ignore it and let someone else deal with it.  You are under no obligation to answer every question, so it's okay to let one go now and again.  Mingmingla (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for changing the name to "WP: Brains' Trust", could we be more arrogant? No, please, just no, not even with the apostrophe that my ENGVAR requires. Bielle (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bielle. I was actually hoping for a strong reaction, either way.  It was meant only quarter-seriously, but I said it in order to focus on the clear mismatch between what we say we are and do, and what we actually are and do.  One way of resolving that would be to "come out", as it were, and acknowledge in our very name that we have often operated as more than just a reference desk.  Another way would be to bring us back to our core purpose, and the foregoing discussion has been mostly about that.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about just "Q&A desk"? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mingmingla's summary is excellent, largely because it reflects the way things are supposed to work around here. If we're going to tighten the RefDesk focus, I'm all for explicitly excluding relationship questions so decisive removal/hatting/templating can take place without too much outcry from disgruntled editors whose answers got squished along with the question.  But in real life the drama will still happen.  People will still disagree about what constitutes a request for relationship advice as opposed to some information about relationships.  Inappropriate questions and answers will still appear for a time until someone deals with them.  And, because of this in particular and other things in general, there will still be a school of thought that continues to regard the RefDesk as incompatible with the purpose and goals of Wikipedia.  I strongly disagree, but I doubt we'll ever reach consensus on that one.  -  Ka renjc 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)