Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

I think the RefDesk should work differently

At present, RefDesk questions are part of one gigantic thread that gets archived periodically. This seems rather crude - and I wonder if we could do better. So I'm throwing this proposal out for comments:

It would be really neat if each question was a separate sub-page transcluded into the RefDesk somehow...like WP:AfD works (for example). The benefit would be that when you create or edit a question, that question would appear on your watchlist. Instead of watching the entire (say) Misc Desk, our supplicants and respondants would be able to see when each question that they were interested in was updated. This would produce several useful effects:

1. Questioners would be able to tell if someone had added something to their question without having to scroll through pages of other questions several times a day. This might improve the situation where a question is asked - but the answer is never read.
2. Questions that were of continuing interest would remain in people's watchlist - so complicated discussions wouldn't just fizzle out because they'd scrolled off the top of the page.
3. It would be possible to submit the same question to multiple desks without 'forking' the discussion in such cases where (say) the question relates equally to science and language - or computing and math.
4. A simple link to a question would work indefinitely rather than needing to be changed when the page gets archived.
5. Questions that have titles like "Question" would arrive at already-existing pages that would tell people "DON'T DO THAT!" - and there is a reasonable chance that someone re-asking the exact same question as before would find their question had already been answered. But even if not - we could put a #REDIRECT at the head of the question and manually redirect it to an existing discussion/answer. Since the same file can be transcluded in more than one place - the questioner would simply see an existing answer popping into existence.
6. Searches would find individual ref-desk answers rather than entire pages of answers...nicer, I think.
7. Unacceptable questions could simply be #REDIRECT'ed to nicely worded "We won't do your homework" pages rather than answered patchily as they tend to be now.

I don't know how hard it would be to do this (some aspects of how transclusion works are still a mystery to me!)...but I think there would be huge benefits.

What do you guys think? SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but offhand this is the biggest problem (although some may not see it as such): people without accounts can't create pages, so couldn't ask new questions by this method. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is like making the refdesks more machinic and less human? I don't mind patchy because human responses are patchy. Patchy is good. It's flexible, personal and open to change/disagreement. The finder works for searching a page using a specific word, as does "my contributions" for account holders. I'm not too techie myself so wouldn't like being directed too much more than exists already. Especially react negatively to bot type injunctions such as "Don't do that" and feel it might discourage would-be pedians at the threshhold. Also there's enough uncertainty about what makes a question what it is (homework? professional advice? etc) without putting them down fixed "chutes" (an analogue moment). Huge benefits for anal types perhaps.My pov, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a pretty good system working at WP:AFC, but it doesn't lend itself to easy searching or timely response on a consistent basis. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, someone else has had thoughts along the same line in other areas. Steve, you might talk to Coren about his ideas. What you are suggesting (I think) was extensively discussed for the AN and AN/I noticeboards and tried out for a while at the Bot Owner's Noticeboard. It was announced as a test, see here, and the subsequent talk thread where I tried a specific test. It's late for me, so I have no further details - you'd have to look at histories prior to that date in March. I thought it was an interesting idea, and pretty transparent for new users, though subject to some caveats. Anyway, it seems the code, bot and procedure are ready and waiting. Maybe we could discuss this more with Coren? Franamax (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've pinged User:Coren - I'll report back when I know more. SteveBaker (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if Coren's work isn't what I'm remembering, there was discussion of making a message-board module for Mediawiki. The talk pages don't lend themselves to messages well. A threaded message board does. The problem is that any module should be backwards compatible with Mediawiki. I'm certain that is the main problem. If there are any genius PHP programmers with a lot of time on their hands, I'm sure the project could use some more code to get functional. -- kainaw™ 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an awesome idea and I'm not just saying that because I've been thinking along much the same lines ;-). There are a couple of obstacles to be overcome.

The way sub-pages work (at least in my experience) is a bit more daunting for wiki-newbies than simply clicking an "ask a question" button. If we could get button(s) to both create the subpage and list the question on the refdesk itself, that would help.

A potential problem is that we'd need a way to make sure each question page was unique. There's a couple of ways to do that; we could append a date/time stamp to the question or even a five digit number or something. Something sequential could also help in keeping the questions in order. How do they do it for multiple listings for AFD?

I may be wrong here, but I think the listing of subpages has to be kept up manually. For example, at WP:FPC, user MER-C essentially does all the hard work himself. Now, there's a great benefit there because whoever did that could hold back questions being thoroughly discussed, but it does bring up the issue of having someone(s) volunteer for that duty, which would require some kind of input at least every day or so.

Obstacles, but hardly terrible ones. I'll be glad to help out however I can. Matt Deres (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea behind the suggestiom, Steve, and I particularly like #4, but the issue for me (and, I suspect, others) is this: Sometimes a question doesn't particularly interest me, so I ignore it. Until, that is, someone comes along and provides a response or makes a comment that calls out for some comment/response from me. If the question were not on my watchlist, I'd miss such comments entirely. To avoid this, I'd have to separately watchlist every question, including the ones I don't think I'm interested in. Then, I'd have to later unwatch them all. Maybe the software would avoid this issue, but I don't know enough about how it would work to be sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern is like Jack's. I watch the desks to see what goes on, and rely on subtitles, edit summaries and editor's names to pick out what might be of interest. If I'm away from the computer for a day or so, I read the page from top to bottom, so that would stil work with transclusion (although a little tedious if you're clicking in and out of subpages when editing), but if it's been a few hours I check out the action by looking at the desks' histories. But I'm not going to click on the histories of a few dozen subpages. There would need to be some way of collating all the "recent changes" into one view. Gwinva (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't that be done with "Show related changes"? I've never tried it, but I believe it was discussed as a technique to use with Coren's bot proposal. Franamax (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion was a year or few ago when the current "move thread to dated archive subpage, transclude the archive for a few days" system. I think "watch for specific-topic answer" vs "watch for interesting discussion" was raised then. I'm firmly in the latter camp and would be sad if Related changes doesn't provide a comparable functionality. However, I can't find the relevant threads (I assume on the WP:RD talk-page archive) at the moment to see what other proposals and ideas were discussed. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

CorenANIBot sub-page method

I haven't found a good comprehensive run-down of Coren's bot method, but I'll try to summarize here and give discussion links:

• Users add threads to the page just as they do now. The bot whisks the new threads off to a sub-page and transcludes it back into the main page.
• The thread has an "edit" link in the main page, just like now (but you end up editing the sub-page). Also there is a "watch this thread" link, which - well, maybe you can guess what it does.
• Watchlist-wise:
  • The RefTopic page would show a change when a new thread is added, also presumably the bot shifting it to the sub-page, and possibly subsequent edits to the thread until the bot catches up. In the BON test, it worked pretty fast, but I was able to catch it once changing clothes.
  • The individual thread would become a separate page and would be watchable if you asked.
  • As far as watching changes to any and all threads, I can't find the mention but I think the thread-bot would need to maintain a "related-changes" page, and the archive-bot should trim threads as they leave. I personally just check the whole bottom half of the RefDesk pages - but I wouldn't mind somewhere to look at which threads have been recently updated. We would need Coren to comment on this.
  • And one thing I spotted is that the bot method would not add the new thread to the watchlist of the originating user. Not sure if Coren overcame this limitation - if not, for me, the whole idea may be a complete non-starter. But maybe not, since it would only apply to registered users, who may be educable.
• References (Warning! May include tl;dr's):
  • AN Talk thread - seems to be where the proposal was first mooted.
  • Bot user page
  • Bot request for approval
  • BON trial - discussion at AN, pros and cons of this method.
  • The actual BON page trial - 4 or 5 threads where the bot was maintaining the page
  • Coren's talk page - Current discussion thread.

Coren's method satisfies many of Steve's criteria. It is relatively transparent for the naive/anonymous user, which should be our major focus (IMO). There are some niggly details and we would definitely need to work with Coren to smooth them out - that's assuming he's still interested in getting the bot running. Based on my watchlist, the RefDesks are right up there as the most active pages on Wikipedia, so we would have to be careful about any change and trial it carefully. On the other hand, we have a sufficient concentration of active and enquiring minds here to be pioneers - that thought has never given me pause at previous times in my life! Franamax (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty darn accurate summary. Two points:

• "Related Changes" is a mediawiki feature; the bot doesn't have to maintain it: simply clicking (or bookmarking, whatever) on the link will give you a list of changes to the subpages.
• There is no way that I could figure out around the not-automatically-watchlisted problem. The problem is that at the moment of the edit, the subpage doesn't even exist yet. A possibility would be to add a "Hi! Thanks for your question, you can add it to your watchlist by clicking on <this pretty link>" to the talkpage of the person who posted the thread via a pretty template. Possibly accompanied with a few tips/FAQs?

At any rate, the bot's fueled and ready to go whenever you guys want to start testing. — Coren ^(talk) 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might work. Just explain this "related changes" possibility. As I understand it, it shows changes to any pages linked from the page in question (which means, at the moment, ref desk related changes generally just shows the last hour of edits to random editors' talk pages, and a few articles of no interest). Can it show the changes to transcluded pages? (Which aren't technically linked.) Presumably if the content of those pages are merely transcluded, then the r.c won't be clogged with changes to their linked articles? (Apologies if the answer is obvious. I'm a bit slow when it comes to this computer thingy.) Gwinva (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on this one too. To get a clean listing, it seems to me we would need a page containing only links to the transcluded subpages. For instance, here I can see changes to precisely the pages I've specified. The only way I can figure is that the bot would add a linked entry for each sub-thread to our bookmarked "watch-page" i.e. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Watchpages - then we would have a place to check -all- the activity on the desk, thread by thread, which would suit me just fine. As an added bonus, trimming of the watchpage could lag the archive bot by a week or two, so extended threads become possible - IMO RefDesk threads never die, the OP could come back 8 days later. Franamax (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sorry I wasn't clear - the bot does maintain a list of live threads so that you can get the "related changes" from that and get just (and exactly) the recent history of the live threads from that page. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your test 11 page, Franamax: that's just the thing we need: to see all recent desk activity on one page. If we can set it up so that anyone can access such a list with ease, then I think this new thread idea will work well. Gwinva (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto

The Esperanto article on basketball is linked under the "This page in other languages" sidebar on the language Refdesk. Why? I'd fix it myself, but don't know how.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. In one of the transcluded archive pages someone had linked to an Esperanto article without the colon at the front. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed medical advice

For the record, I've removed this request, along with a couple of answers: [1]. We're not in the business of offering medical advice, and if the guy has noticed a sudden dramatic increase in perspiration it's something that he should speak to a medical professional about. Even if it's harmless (just embarrassing), a doctor may be able to help him resolve the problem in ways that we can't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that the OP knew it was a request for medical advice, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of asking us not to remove it. -- kainaw™ 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he could have at least been shown an appropriate article: "Hyperhidrosis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Not everything physical has to be medical imo so if there's an article, try that. No-one's saying ask your doctor about the masturbation question about possible (yes, mythical) problems, is there a difference with that? Just the same to me it's a fair removal and no big deal. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This hits on an issue I've brought up many times. If a person says "I have XXXXXXX", it is removed as a request for medical advice. If a person says "My friend has XXXXXXXX", it is removed as a request for medical advice. If a person says "Give me information about XXXXXXXX", it is answered. The masturbation question only asked information. The questioner did not claim that he was masturbating excessively or that he had any physical problems due to excessive masturbation. So, it wasn't considered medical advice. -- kainaw™ 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it then that a person has to be clever and not subjective in the way they ask their question. That last one gained some graphic speculation (which might have been meant to be aversive). Still it was physical and doesn't bring out the see your doctor line, rather the "we can answer this"as quasi experts. Uvula got the line I think, though we have an article because it asked for advice but apparently just needed information. I can think of a question about height getting the doctorial line, if the question goes: I'm worried I'm too tall at 16 rather than: what is the average height for 16 y.o. blah blah. Are we training people to ask questions and if they fail to get it right, send them to the doctor? Just wondering, Julia Rossi (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're trying to strike a healthy balance between the Medical disclaimer, the Ref Desk guidelines (medical advice), WP:AGF, WP:SENSE, protecting the project and its reputation, and primum non nocere. If you have ideas about how we can better achieve that, I think we'd all give you a fair hearing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While a link to hyperhidrosis might have been acceptable, it seemed obvious that a) the guy was looking for medical advice from us, and b) responders on the Desk just couldn't resist giving it. I count two suggested home remedies (alcohol spray, essential oils), a couple of diagnoses (abnormal nervousness—see a shrink; over-active sweat glands—see your doctor), and one anecdote implying that the problem might go away by itself (once the person '[grows] out of it'). Of the three responses, no one mentioned (or seemed to know) that excessive sweating could be a symptom of a serious underlying illness (secondary hyperhidrosis). That's one of the more important reasons why we pull these sorts of questions—the responses are invariably going to be incomplete, and may discourage readers from seeking proper medical attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. We should remember this example the next time we find ourselves in a debate about whether or not to give medical advice. Incidentally, I think I did suggest asking a doctor if curious about the dangers of masturbation (I may be remembering incorrectly, I can't be bothered to check!), although I gave some general advice as well, as did other people. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GONE

WarriorFIRESTAR is gone! I didn't know if I could get to his talk page or not, so what do I have to do to get there?!

-Warriorscourge (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC), HELP ME PLEASE!!!

The page User:WarriorFIRESTAR was speedily deleted as apparently containing some material that wasn't appropriate for a user page, but User talk:WarriorFIRESTAR is still there and perfectly usable. Also, this isn't actually the right place to ask these questions - this belongs on something like Wikipedia:Help desk. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Scsbot is broken

Hi. In case you didn't notice, all the reference desks' date headers stopped working on October 23, which was Scsbot's last edit. Should we add it manually? What's going on? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Date headers

I just noticed that several date headers were missing from the desks (some missing Oct 24, some Oct 25, and some both). I added them in where they seemed to go, but some of the date stamps seemed fishy to me - as if no questions were asked for nearly a day in some cases. Anyway, if something looks wrong about the dates, my edits are a place to check, but I was only tryin' to help, I swears it! I though the date tags got done automatically..? Matt Deres (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I knew I should have read through the page before posting! I just saw AH1's post above. They're fixed for now. Matt Deres (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted posting

This deletion was done by me. Please feel free to restore if you feel that I've screwed up. -hydnjo talk 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just...odd. Good call, if only because it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. (Part of it's a random cut and paste from here, the rest seems to be a copy/paste of the text around the edit window.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it humorous that the IP posted a bunch of mumbo jumbo, and the bot noticed it only because the IP forgot to sign. 70.179.52.204 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

legal advice

I saw someone confused about legal advice on the misc desk. Just another reminder... take a look at our article on legal advice.

In the common law, legal advice is the giving of a formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law by an officer of the court (such as solicitor or barrister), ordinarily in exchange for financial or other tangible compensation. Advice given without remuneration is normally referred to as being pro bono publico (in the public good), or colloquially, pro bono.

Legal advice is distinguished from legal information which is the reiteration of legal fact. Legal information can be conveyed by a parking meter, sign or by other forms of notice such as a warning by a law enforcement officer. Printed legal materials, such as directions and how-to manuals, are generally not considered legal advice. Accordingly, directions on how to fill in a motion form and other court documents do not constitute legal advice. There exist, however, some exceptions to this distinction in countries where the law is considered to be a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession.

Telling someone what the law is is not legal advice because it's not a formal opinion on what they should do. It's telling someone what they CAN do. 72.236.192.238 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is a huge discrepancy between the way we handle legal and medical issues over at Miscellaneous. I got yelled at a couple weeks ago for advising a woman with a behavior problem with her puppy to go see a dog trainer, which I thought was extremely overcautious—but that's an example of how anything remotely close to medical advice gets shut down routinely (almost all cases where I agree we've come too close to giving medical advice). But on legal issues, we have longtime contributors giving advice on how to talk to law enforcement personnel, deal with tax issues, etc, etc. I mean, isn't telling someone that the law covering their legal situation is X pretty similar to telling someone that their medical situation has X, Y, and Z possible diagnoses? The danger (as I see it) is that if we start telling someone with a specific tax situation that the American IRS guidelines for that situation are whatever, that we screw it up, that we don't know all the facts that a tax attorney or accountant or person who picks up the phone on the IRS helpline would know. And so forth. Darkspots (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For the OP: The Reference Desk's operating understanding of "legal advice" is not required to be the definition you elect to trot out -- even if that definition is from Wikipedia. The two contexts are not the same, and the RD's "legal advice" policy operates via consensus. As for telling someone "what the law is", anything other than a direct quote of the law in question constitutes an original synthesis of what the law might mean. Even a direct quote without the proper context fails this sort of test. So no, your statement about what legal advice is and is not is not the one held here.

For Darkspots: I think we're tighter on medical issues, but I don't think legal is as lax as you suggest. Most such answers I notice include such caveats as "X law may apply" or "depending on jurisdiction" or the like. Additionally, "X law may apply" and "B diagnosis is possible" aren't, to my mind, comparable. Let's assume that X and B are both reasonable but ultimately wrong. For law, the correct Y may supercede X, but X is still relevant. In medicine, correct diagnosis C need have no relation to guess B. B provides no real insight or direction. — Lomn 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second point to me, I think that you've certainly got a good point and it really is extremely difficult to compare legal advice and medical advice. But in terms of the first point, yeah, what I described does happen. I really don't want to trot out diffs because that's not my agenda, but I've been thinking about this for a while, and we've definitely advised people about how to talk to law enforcement personnel about their legal status (that was on a thread that I had initially responded to the question as no-legal-advice) and we've definitely said that so-and-so regulation covers some specific tax question. In a month or so of observing this, I haven't seen any answers removed because they constituted legal advice (I could have missed something, but I have been watching the behavior of this specific point). There's a lot of confusion on what is and isn't legal advice and it seems to me that people are very happy to give more-or-less anecdotal advice about legal issues. Darkspots (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And as just a case study. It would be not too difficult for a well-read amateur to give a good explanation of whether and how a fair use determination would apply in a given circumstance. The variables are not that many and there is a specific way to answer the question and while in the end one cannot say with any certainty how a judge would rule, you could reasonably narrow down the parameters of the ruling based on previous case law. With medicine, the variables are much, much greater, and depend on many factors which are not necessarily described/describable in an online setting. A set of symptoms could be anything from a mild cold to early stage lung cancer. Only someone with expert medical knowledge and direct observation of the patient would be able to rule in or out any given condition's probability. Legal questions are generally much more narrow—it is a purposefully codified system of thought, artificially reducing what matters down to a few consideration. Medicine is an entirely different beast. While we can't tell anyone what they ought to do (legal advice), we can certainly give some indications as to how a lawyer or judge might look at things. With medicine I doubt we could do the latter with any efficiency unless we were being entirely vague to the point of just referring them to a specialist. Just my two cents. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this distinction between legal advice and legal information thing well answered somewhere on the ref desk itself awhile ago? Possibly by the op if I recall though can't find the reference for it. Finding out how to research a legal status and juridiction distinctions seem helpful otherwise why would an op come to the ref desk in the first place? My 2 bits. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SineBot down

Looks like our buddy SineBot is on holidays again; somebody has already left a note on Slakr's page. Feel free to manually sign if you're so inclined. --LarryMac | Talk<;;/small> 13:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolls

copied from WP:RDS [2] Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in checking out this user's contribs [3] Nil Einne [4] [5] [6]. Also as an anon [7] [8] Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This may belong at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but is utterly unrelated to a perfectly legitimate question. EverGreg (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the users history and reaction to responses to the question, I'm not convinced this user is really interested in the answer (i.e. I'm not convinced this is a legitimate question). When it seems unlikely to me the question asker is really interested in the anwser, I rarely respond (I offer my help to those who want it, not to those who come here to troll) so I find it helpful when people point out if a question asker seems to be of that sort. I'm not of course trying to suggest what others should do (which is why I didn't offer any suggestions but simply the links) and would have let this be had you not responded, but as I've already said, I'm not the first person to point out a dubious question asker (nor is this the first time I've pointed out a dubious question asker in case you think I only care because he/she vandalised my user page) and yes I do find it helpful and fine (although I do know you're not the first person to complain when people point out that a user is probably not really interested in the answer, you are of course entitled to your opinion that it doesn't matter, I just disagree that I shouldn't point it out). If this user had shown signs of reforming, I would have let it be, but the first thing I saw when I checked out his/her contribs was he/she vandalised my user page which suggests otherwise. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'd hesitate to call them "trolls" - we have had an unusual spate of 'serial posters' - people who post almost the same question (but with tiny variations ) over and over again. I'd cite the four or five questions about the color of Uranus and Neptune over the past couple of weeks - but there have been several others recently. It's hard to know what to do about them - but it does get intensely annoying. Why do these people get SO obsessed by a single, narrow topic and yet are NEVER completely satisfied with the answer - no matter how carefully we explain it or in how much detail. It really gets to the point where "Don't feed the trolls" applies and we should simply delete (and subsequently ignore) them...but we need to be careful because there are often genuine follow-on questions. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Get answers

Does the answers they give me is always right? Fewpeople likes me to sign up with beautforum website and ask questions on that site. Do they know mor stuff than we generally do.--FRWY 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You should try clicking "show preview" before clicking "save page". In your question, you do not indicate who "they" are or what questions you are asking to get "the answers." You also appear to mean "bautforum.com", not "beautforum". Then, you do not indicate clearly who "we" are in your last sentence. I can only guess that you are asking if the people posting messages at bautforum.com know more about astronomy than the people posting messages on Wikipedia's reference desk. If that is the question, the answer is a clear "maybe". It depends on the question and the answer. The reference desk is intended to be a source for references, not opinions. Bautforum.com is intended to be a forum for discussions of ideas and opinions, not references. So, it is hard to identify the users of one or the other as knowing more stuff. -- kainaw™ 01:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Desk will not give our map navigations

• Do we mention the guidelines for people to check our own maps if we have to go someplace, because this desk cannot give people how to get from one place to another, if poeple give this stripe, then should we erase them? Lets say people post message how to get from point A to B, this will flood desk, and probably will known as vandalism.--FRWY 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a real of theoretical problem. I suspect if someone asks for directions from A to B, we're as likely to tell them how to get directions from some other source, than to provide the directions themselves. The subject does not strike me as being important enough to be mentioned in the page header. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot answer questions about traffic conditions. Some people wants to avoid most congestion route, we can't answer those questions. Those questions we have to ask Newsstaff or Transportation admins.--FRWY 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

But these questions do not get asked. What's the problem? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone ever did ask such a question, I do not see any arguments against answering them that I agree with. There is the claim that those questions will flood the desk. They aren't banned now and the desks aren't flooded. There is the claim that they will be known as vandalism. If I saw such a question, I wouldn't assume it to be vandalism. There is the claim that we need to include traffic conditions when answering a "How do I get from A to B" question. I don't see why. If you asked me how to get from Miami to New York, I'd just tell you to take I-95 north. No need to explain traffic conditions along the way. Until this is a problem, I don't see a reason to make rules against it. -- kainaw™ 01:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen a question of that type asked, and we don't usually make policy to deal with every hypothetical situation. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to see a question about how to get from Point A to Point B, I'd probably provide a link to an appropriate Google Maps search. If there were a request for traffic information and optimal routes, I'd look for local traffic information sources (many metropolitan areas maintain webcams of major highways and arterial roads, while regions subject to severe weather often post information about snow clearance or flooding). For more specific, interactive help, I would suggest making a stop for fuel or coffee and asking the clerk for directions.

If we had a sudden influx of these questions, we might be compelled to respond differently, of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I once helped to answer a question asking the best way to get from Webster Hall to Penn Station. It seemed like a genuine question. I've never seen any other questions asking for directions but I imagine we could answer the occasional query without the desk shutting down. Darkspots (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From let's say Orange COast College to Hollywood or Silver Lake, California, we can't clearly answer, since first you have to work on specific arterial.--FRWY 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't say: "See here: [9]"? --Tango (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)What is the problem? Or in the alternative, could we wait until it arises, and you can then say "told you so". Even your example is lame: I plugged appropriate values into google and guess what: it gave me a result. You don't have to work out anything except how to give good advice and avoid bad. You do not need to get into a dither about which roads to use; you do better to point the user at a tool allowing them to get the answer themselves. In short, there is no problem to fix that we can see, and even were there a problem, there will be no action taken since the problem has occurred so infrequently or never as to be nugatory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to the fact that this is a reference desk. We can (and should) give out references that help a person understand how to drive from one place to another (such as a link to Google Maps). This is not a discussion forum. Therefore, we should not be discussing which roads we prefer to drive down. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that we need this restriction. We aren't inundated with such requests. We already tell people to try doing a regular Google search - and that works for driving directions. If they are asking about traffic congestion then it may well be that we don't have online resources but that one of our respondants may know from personal experience. But even if the information COULD have been found online - and we ASK people to search the web first - we know that some people really suck at web searches. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone asked a question and said "I searched Wikipedia and Google but couldn't find anything"...then I'll type a suitable search string into Google and get the answer back in the first hit. I don't know what they actually typed...but it was clearly ineffective. So, no - we don't need this rule. SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need rules against "potential" problems, only actual problems. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What about advising for patient/physician communications?

I'd appreciate your feedback on the nature of my response to the Misc Desk query: "Medical related question but not asking for advice as such" just now. Is this an acceptable approach, or did I overstep the RD guidelines? I wrote in the spirit of patient education by a layperson, based on (a) inhouse experience in patient advocacy when I worked for several years in ancillary health services in major US hospitals (– perhaps I might note this on my User page?), and (b) now 15 months post-numerous fractures (including vertebrae) sustained in an automotive collision, including surgery, rehab, and recovery. A recent month's stay in the USA brought home the dreadful situation of the uninsured for whom medical care must be balanced in the shrinking family budget, while I live in an otherwise difficult country that sees to its inhabitants' access to health care. I don't often patrol the Misc RD, but do believe that our answers are read by many and may serve to provide immeasurable help if offered with due consideration. What do you say? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. It's not really what the OP was asking for, but it's probably the most helpful we can be without straying into medical advice. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "Ways to Reduce Youth Violence"

I deleted the thread "Ways to Reduce Youth Violence" on the Misc desk (diff). I didn't participate in the thread and I won't get involved again if someone wants to reinstate it. -- BenRG (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was starting to get out of hand. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it took a weird turn/rant. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While I was one of the people who made the mess, I agree as well. While I don't regret anything I said there (perhaps some of the things I didn't say), I do regret getting involved in the first place Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have favored deleting the offending posts and leaving the remainder of the thread. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is how do you decide what the 'offending posts' are? I've already concided I shouldn't have responded but I don't think I was the only one or the first one who went partly or completely OT Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to play the blame game here. I'm just pointing out that deleting certain posts is inherently significantly more problematic then deleting the whole thread as it requires someone to analyse each post and decide which one is okay and which one is bad. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But then, deleting the whole thing when the original post doesn't contravene our rules - is wrong. You'd be penalising our customer because of our inability to stay on topic. I think it's good to attempt to put a stop to the discussion when it gets out of hand - but deleting things that don't contravene any rules should surely be a "no-no". SteveBaker (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But then, I'm not certain original post was done in much good faith. I think it's a fine thing that we sometimes stretch the rules here to allow the occasional non-reference question, but this was not something you'd ask at a library reference desk (which is usually my first rule of thumb); if you were curious about the topic, you wouldn't walk up to a librarian and ask about ways to reduce youth violence, would you? At the very least, you'd ask for prominent books or articles about the subject. I would have hidden the thread rather than deleted it, but I don't object to it getting wiped. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Stephen and Steve (dedalus and Baker) on this one. I'm not certain the question was asked in good faith either, but I have no reason to believe it wasn't. We get plenty of questions that wouldn't be posed to a librarian in that form. We can almost always interpret them as "can you give me any references on ..." or "what do the experts say about ...". In this case, as in most cases, it would have been easy to identify relevant socio-political studies, government reports, educational programs, and so forth, without adding and debating one's own strong opinions. It isn't the question's fault that the thread deteriorated. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain either, but the question was simply "Are there ways to reduce Youth Violence?" which is plainly a request for opinions. The questioner also never returned to the thread (and indeed, never posted before or since), which is not troll behaviour in and of itself, but it does beg the question about how interested they were in getting a "proper" answer. Not that he or she was getting one here in any case... Matt Deres (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this poor horse is a cold corpse by now, but I'll keep beating it, because I find these exchanges interesting and potentially educative:

I disagree that "Are there ways to reduce Youth Violence?" is "plainly a request for opinions". Where I live, for example, youth violence is an issue identified by institutions such as academia, law-enforcement, politics, community networks, or the media. To a certain degree, we can trace and measure its evolution during the past 20 years. We can refer to case studies addressing and comparing different approaches of prevention. It is a question of general interest. Yes, it may also touch values and opinion, and one may make this transparent and report these values and opinions when notable, instead of expressing and arguing one's individual take,

Of course, the question itself could be answered with "yes." (or "no.") by the literally and pedantically minded among us, but I always like it when we strive to get the most out of a question in terms of an edifying response. I maintain that this wouldn't have been difficult in this case.

The minority of querents visibly return to their question, and I rarely ask myself how interested querents are in getting a proper answer, as I generally have no idea how to determine this. (Blatant trollery, recidivism by the same IP range, and the occasional SEO matrixist excepted). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with those who say deleting a valid question because of a problematic response is wrong. It's completely wrong. It should never be allowed. And I see nothing wrong with the question "Are there ways to reduce youth violence ?". I'm sure there are many scientific studies on this topic which can provide answers. I would have taken all the problematic posts and put them on Nil's talk page, then he could decide what to do with them. Or, better yet, put that all in one of those collapsible edit boxes and leave it where it was. Yes, it may be easier to just delete everything, BUT THE REF DESK IS NOT HERE TO MAKE DELETIONS SIMPLE ! It's here to answer valid questions, like this one. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we’ve reached consensus on this question for whenever the question next comes up. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Using someone else's unsecured wifi / Legal advice.

Is this (diff) acceptable? I wasn't bold enough to just go ahead and delete the thread, since several contributors had already answered, but surely this is a blatant violation of the "no legal advice" policy? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is definitely asking for legal advice, and one of the responses exemplifies why we have the no legal advice rule: it makes a specific, possibly incorrect legal claim which if acted on could get the OP into serious trouble. I've removed the thread. Algebraist 23:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true at all, is it? Wikipedia's legal disclaimer applies to all of Wikipedia, including both the Ref Desk and the article space. If your interpretation were correct Wikipedia couldn't have any articles about legal subjects. All of them make specific and possibly incorrect legal claims. Not every question about the law is a request for legal advice, and this particular question looks fine to me. -- BenRG (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between writing something in an article, and responding to a question by an individual. Yes, technically the OP was asking a factual question, but if he had written "Would I be commiting a crime if I were to connect my PC to my neighbour's unsecured wifi?", do you still think it is ok? It's difficult to know where to draw the line.

A comparison in the medical field: "Are people with a delta wave in their ECG prone to Cardiac arrhythmias when they do physical excercise?". OK? What about "I have a delta wave in my ECG, but have never had any cardiac arrhythmia. Is it ok if I train for a marathon?" --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BenRG, I don't think your response actually answers Algebraist's concerns. Similar to our rules on (not) giving medical advice, we also refrain from offering legal advice not because we expect that Wikipedia would be successfully sued but because we don't want to do harm to our readers. The disclaimer (probably) protects us from the former, but not from the latter. (As an aside, I'll also note that the disclaimer doesn't prevent frivolous lawsuits and the waste of time and money that they would represent, nor does the disclaimer protect any Wikipedia editor — it's just there to cover the Foundation.)

Speaking to this particular question, it sure looks like a request for legal advice. Worse, it appears that a number of editors who ought to know better were giving that advice, and illustrating why we don't allow such advice to be given. Some editors were arguing by faulty analogy, while others were offering a legal opinion without any reference to a source. As far as I can see, none of the responses provided described any law or rules that pertained to the OP's jurisdiction (Canada). I think the removal was a good call. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of ways we can put people in danger with misleading responses. Except when the danger happens to be medical or legal in nature, there's no Ref-Desk-doesn't-do-this policy. If it were really about protecting people from potentially harmful misinformation, a large fraction of Ref Desk threads would have to go. If it were about protecting people from any kind of misinformation, the whole Ref Desk would have to go. But it's not—only medical and legal questions get this special treatment. Why? Well, for legal reasons, I've always assumed. Nothing else makes sense.

We should do everything possible to avoid giving people dangerously bad advice. But I don't get how you can think that dangerously bad advice is in some way associated with the medical or legal professions. What about questions involving dangerous chemistry experiments? What about heating with a gas stove? I would remove that heating thread before I'd remove this WiFi-stealing thread—death by carbon monoxide poisoning trumps a fine and jail time. It would be harder to cast that question as a request for medical advice than to cast the WiFi question as a request for legal advice, but the real reason for removal is the same in both cases; the ill fit to official policy reflects the fact that the removal actually has nothing to do with the policy.

Do we all at least agree that "Are people with a delta wave in their ECG prone to cardiac arrhythmias when they do physical exercise?" is an allowed question on the Ref Desk? In case anyone doesn't realize it, Wikipedia:Reference desk explicitly lists medicine as a topic covered by the Science desk, and law as a topic covered by the Humanities desk. -- BenRG (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What BenRG is saying does have a point in a sense. It reminds me how someone posted a question on the Computing desk on how to hack into their own email account that they forgot the password to. Technically, it's not legal advice, as he wasn't asking what are the legal ramifications of doing so, but hacking is illegal and if someone actually gave him instructions on how to hack (no one did, instead we gave him alternatives on how to remember and protect his password), then technically that person would be giving advice on doing something dangerous without violating the "no legal advice" rule. Same thing if someone were to ask how to hotwire a car, or if it is safe to mix certain chemicals for experimental purposes, as BenRG pointed out. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk guidelines on medical advice seem to agree with BenRG on this one, even though it may be an intelligent the questioner's way of asking "I have a delta wave in my ECG, but have never had any cardiac arrhythmia. Is it ok if I train for a marathon?". If we agree to answer such questions, we must keep in mind that they easily could be disguised requests for advice. The example that I gave refers to an uncommon condition that few laypeople would know about if they or someone close to them weren't affected. A intelligent questioner would ask a professional. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What about creating guidelines stating you may not give out illegal advice either? 88.211.96.3 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What jurisdiction would define "illegal"? Would the determination of illegality run afoul of the legal advice issue? This appears to be a suggestion that, while good at the core, is buried under miles of thorns. I'm more than content to let the RD use common sense and self-police this one. — Lomn 21:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I don't really approve of this question [10], but I'm not so bothered about it that I'm going to remove it. But it has caused me to notice that the injunction against using the Reference Desk as a soapbox appears to have vanished from the Ref Desk Guidelines. Can we reinstate it? Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the question holds a flurry of examples that seem necessary if you're asking to know what is the connection among them. To me it's a question about the soapboxing techniques of others and would fall into the kind of question that a person might go to the refdesks to have answered – namely, asking for input that connects one kind of thing found in an article with another, the kind of bridging information that refdeskers might have extra knowledge about; or an explanation. Now that you directed me to the guidelines, they seem largely about what is verboten and not about what the refdesks can and do supply (beyond the usually direction to this or that reference or link) – the little extras that make sense of information, bridging material, background connections, updated application of knowledge etc. Could something be inserted to express that? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the rule against soap-boxing was lost on October 10th when User:Nunh-huh refactored the rules list for readability. [11] APL (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nunh-huh is still there. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanked archive

Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/March 2006 got blanked by an IP address back in January 2008. It was the IP's only contribution (no evidence on-wiki of them complaining anywhere about something). I would restore the page, but I had the thought that something on the page might have offended someone. Can anyone have a quick look and see if they think reverting the unblanking would be OK? Also, does anyone watchlist the archive pages to catch this sort of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. No need for discussion before undoing an unexplained blanking. Maybe the anonymous blanker was offended by something, but it doesn't matter; we're not censored. -- BenRG (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone watchlist the archive pages? Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more generally, do we have a bot (or some other tool) which could watchlist archives automagically? (Not just for the Ref Desk archives, but for pages like the AN/I archives as well.) Have it leave a message somewhere if the archives get tampered with. Just a thought. (I'd probably be better asking this over at WP:HD, but here I am....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it may matter. We have no way of knowing what offended the blanker, if something did, and if it were a WP:BLP violation for example it would matter. However I'm personally, despite being a BLP hawk, not going to look through 30 days of archives to try and work out if there is any such problem nor would I expect that of anyone else so unless the blanker reappears I agree it's best to just leave it unblanked. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having a stats moment, interestingly there were about 30 hits with the finder looking for "offen" (-der, -sive, -ce, -ding, etc). Julia Rossi (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did Forrest Gump win over Shawshank Redemption in the 1994 Oscars?

Why?140.198.158.73 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

More people voted for it than voted for the other film. I think you;re on the wrong page, but what the hell. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs on the Entertainment Desk, not the Ref Desk discussion page. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the judges smelled more success in a box of chocolates than in a pipe full of sewage ? StuRat (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

removed USA freefall question.

A bad faith question that rapidly deteriorated into name-calling and soapboxing. I suspect nobody will miss it, but here's the diff. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the OP appears to have been trolling, although that wasn't apparent initially. I hate to see those who gave good faith responses have their comments wiped out, though. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For sure, but there didn't seem much sense to leave the few standalone comments while removing the trolling and responses to it. To be honest, I wasn't completely sure about doing it; the fact that nobody from that thread has come here or to my talk page to bitch me out is a bit of a relief. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a repost. FiggyBee (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work, though you should probably have reposted it at the Speculation, opinion and endless discussion desk. Franamax (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed dicey question

==Adrafinil vs Piracetam?==

I am buying one and only one brain drug. It's between these two. Which should I purchase? It's just a study drug for finals week. For more info, Adrafinil, and Piracetam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Diff, discussion? -hydnjo talk 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Way over the medical-advice line, removal was a good call. Darkspots (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

Which RD can I ask questions about mythology? JCI (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Humanities is probably best. Algebraist 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed medical advice (THC absorption)

Just recording the fact that I removed a question some guy was asking about how best to absorb THC from pot - diff be here:[12] Gunrun (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that removal. As far as I can see, the question was a factual one: "Does holding in cannabis smoke result in a higher level of THC absorption?" There has been research performed on this, and refs can be given. Also, I'm not sure this is the kind of situation in which we can say "Ask a licensed professional". The question is more pharmacology than medicine. Fribbler (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how this is a request for medical advice. The questioner did not state he had a medical problem or ask about using THC to treat a medical problem. He asked for the effectiveness of a method of absorbing THC, not specifically for himself, but for some average person. Using the accepted rules for identifying medical advice questions, can this be answered completely without providing medical advice? Yes. Just point the questioner to research on the topic. You do not need to diagnose the questioner with any disease or claim that anything in your answer will treat a disease he has. -- kainaw™ 15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not medical advice. Please revert the removal. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reposted (at the bottom) per the above comments. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RD Header Error

There's an odd problem with the home RD header this morning. I'm seeing a bunch of HTML code right above the search box:

<i>Search Wikipedia:</i>
<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node
count: 19/10000000 Post-expand include
size: 1274/2048000 bytes Template
argument size: 0/2048000 bytes Expensive
parser function count: 0/500 -->

Is this just me or is there something broken on the template? Reloading doesn't seem to help. 198.29.191.149 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it too. Doesn't look like a template problem as none have been edited for a while. Chemical Weathering (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have something to do with this. Fribbler (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we do anything about it? Do we have to reduce the templates? It doesn't look very nice. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the foggiest. The information shown on the page is in the html rather than the wiki code. It shouldn't be showing up. Who's best to ask about html? The Computer Desk? Or do we have a different recourse? Fribbler (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Left a note at WP:VPT. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) That's the job. Thanks Zain. Lets see what they come up with. Fribbler (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed temporarily by removing the label-text (but there's nothing to say that the search box is a search box). Now we just have to wait for the techies to sort it out - please revert me when they do. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

At least for me, it's showing up without the text on the rd header, but it's still there on wp:rd itself. Fribbler (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this purged version. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Working now. Fribbler (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Do you think we should keep the search box there when we don't say it's a search box? I've always wondered whether we really needed it in the first place. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it seems redundant, given there's a search box to the left anyway. But anything that entices a few users to "search first" is likely to be useful. How about how it looks now, with "Search Wikipedia:" added, but outside the template? Fribbler (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. That works fine. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from the script-illiterate! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue is fixed now in the development version. This commit is not yet live on en.wp however. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is live, so I restored the old version of the inputbox code. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF = give-the-OP-an-answer, period?

I'm taken aback by Julia Rossi's remark ("...just asking") and apparent difficulty in considering the detailed discussion by two experienced users' responses "an answer"—besides what I read as an accusation of lacking good faith. On the contrary, I felt that our thread of responses was pertinent and helpful: internal links plus weighing the pros/cons of the top but questionable choice, "oxymoron." As a professional writer, I provided my personal choice and justification for it with caveats stemming from admitted period prejudices. Did I offend by taking a tone some would read as a rant? Even disregarding (?) the value of its content, I don't think my responses trespassed beyond the boundaries of "wit and witticism" to which we and the OPs are treated in many responses across the Ref Desks. Input/feedback/advice? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, (whew!) J.R. updated her remark. "Never mind!" All clear! :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it's always good to go to the user's talk page first if you have an issue with something they (and only they) said. In most cases it's a simple misunderstanding. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Disorder

<moved to misc desk here[13]> Julia Rossi (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing things

Maybe I misunderstood, but removed Perrymankster's comment under train buff section. Can;t find the diff, but here is my edit: 08:23, 5 December 2008 Julia Rossi (Talk | contribs) m (66,749 bytes) (→What can I get this guy for Christmas?: del what reads like vandalism) (rollback | undo) Please fix if I'm wrong, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it, here[14]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And this[15] at If you break it you've bought it. Over to you, zzzz now in Australia, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm kinda wondering when the RD became a gift-counseling hotline, myself. --LarryMac | Talk 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas for an airline pilot who likes gardening (brother-in-law)? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A crop duster plane ? StuRat (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Larrymac, about the time it became a sex/marriage/singles hotline I'd guess. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean that wasn't the original purpose? I always thought the computing desk was to help when dating online (or you've hit a dry spell and need other outlets...), the science desk was for when you need a quick anatomy lesson on the erogenous zones, the maths desk for when you're trying to work out how people you've slept with in the past year, the humanities desk for when your dealing with all that ugly stuff in a relationship like 'conversation', the language desk to help you with foreign dudes/chicks, the entertainment desk for when your lucky enough to be with a celebrity and misc for everything else. (Okay that didn't come out as well as I hoped, I'll stop now) Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those times I'm glad the seagull desk never took off. Algebraist 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure any seagull would love to receive a tasty fried potato snack at this time of year. --LarryMac | Talk 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OP

What does OP stand for? Original Poster ? Jay (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or Original Post. Meaning either the initial post in the thread, or the person that posted it. Gunrun (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At one point it was discussed that using such "internet jargon" should be avoided on the desks, but I guess we continue to slip into chat/forum territory. --LarryMac | Talk 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to continue using it. Writing “original poster” every time just seems pretentious. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I could not find OP at Wikipedia:Glossary or Wikipedia:Alphabet soup. Can you add it there with explanation. I tried editing the glossary but could not figure out what "anchor" meant. Is there any other meta page where OP has been mentioned? Jay (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kainaw and User:DragonHawk for adding it. Jay (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ichthyophobia and poo walls

I have removed this request for medical help. Psychological and psychiatric problems require medical help in exactly the same manner as a heart ailment or stomach trouble. We are in no position to offer advice, let alone recommend courses of treatment. Matt Deres (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we have a request for help regarding a kid wiping shit on his washroom wall. Should this not be removed and referred to a child psychologist? I'd do it myself, but I just removed a medical question and I'm worried I'm getting trigger happy. Am I misreading these questions? Matt Deres (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to point OP to professional medical help, tend to agree with you on this. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You did well. Take 'em both out. Must be the time of year – again. Sometimes the trigger is needed. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The washroom wall question is ridiculous. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, "ridiculous" means "worthy only for ridicule", and we certainly should not ridicule the original poster. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed[16] with apologies to all who responded. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do, indeed find you to be "trigger happy". First, on the not liking fish question:

1) Judging from the number of responders who thought it was a valid Q, this certainly is NOT the type of question which is so obviously bad that it requires immediate removal without first posting here and developing a consensus. Unilateral deletions are only needed in the most serious cases.

2) This is not the type of thing a reasonable person would ever take to a shrink, unless they had more time and money than sense. Just about everyone has some food they dislike, and referring everyone to a shrink for this is quite absurd. Thus, your removal is unwarranted.

Now, as for the poo on the walls Q. I do agree here that, if true, this indicates a problem where psychological advice is needed. However, there are also related areas that can be addressed without a shrink, like "could it be a pet doing it ?", "how to clean the walls", and "get him his own bathroom until this prob is addressed". Therefore, the Q shouldn't be removed, but we should refrain from giving advice on how to solve the psychological problem. The last time I read it, that was exactly what the status was, thus the removal is unwarranted. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

StuRat, I respect your opinion in this, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Besides the question of whether phobias qualify as needing professional assistance, I don't think your statement that the number of responses here justifies leaving it. We're here because we like telling people things; remember the situation with the questions about why people don't like Americans and why people don't like Brits? They were obviously discussion topics and shouldn't have been answered, but a large number of us did reply, myself included. We wanna answer! "We" (in the collective sense) were wrong to take part in those discussion threads and we were wrong to answer requests for psychological advice.

I also disagree with your assertion that the OP's phobia was nothing more than not liking a certain food. Not liking fish is not a phobia, but the revulsion the OP had was certainly indicative of something deeper, as they themselves stated. At this point the phobia seems pretty mild, but me making that judgement is no different than me making a judgement that someone's tummy trouble is pretty mild. A short talk with the family MD would be much better for both situations. Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that "the number of responses here justifies leaving it". I stated that the number of responses justifies discussing it before performing any deletion, as opposed to unilaterally deciding to delete it. We should respect the consensus. The only valid reason not to wait for a consensus to develop is if you have an absolute certainty that it will be for deletion. Many people posting answers implies that it's far from an absolute certainty, and you should thus wait for one to develop. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you now agree that phobias are a psychological problem? Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that mild phobias require professional advice. Just about everyone is afraid of spiders, insects, snakes, or heights, etc., and dislikes some foods to some extent. Only if a severe phobia is interfering with your life would professional help be warranted. This is similar to if someone asked how to best remove a Band-Aid, and we told them to go ask a doctor. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

StuRat, I don't think that that's a correct interpretation of our guidelines here. Our first goal here is to do no harm, and that may include removing discussions which seek or offer medical advice before carrying out an extensive conversation on this talk page. While it would be superfluous to repeat the arguments in detail – you're an experienced contributor to this talk page, and have seen them before – it's worth remembering that questions are usually answered very rapidly on the Ref Desk. Waiting several hours to develop a consensus to remove a question (and potentially-harmful answers) is functionally equivalent to doing absolutely nothing at all.

The consensus which does exist is that we will discuss controversial removals on this talk page, and restore removed threads if a consensus develops that the removal was unnecessary. Such threads are restored to the bottom of their Ref Desk page, to ensure that those questions still receive the exposure and attention of Ref Desk participants.

Incidentally, if anyone is counting noses, I think that both removals were good calls. Both questions substantially sought advice which would fall afoul of our guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the deletionist Ref Desk guidelines which state that anything can be deleted unilaterally, while consensus is required to restore it. I'm also quite aware that this violates Wikipedia policy which allows anyone to delete unilaterally, but also allows anyone to restore unilaterally. StuRat (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you view on policy outside the RD. Per BRD, if you are changing established content (and that includes adding new content) and it is reverted, you generally should not unilaterally restore without consensus. This is perhaps part of our 'default to previous' philosophy to discourage edit wars and in recognition of the assumptuon consensus is often presumed until evidence of the contrary. Whether this should apply to the RD is an interesting point since you aren't really changing established content, but I don't think it's true that wikipedia policy encourages people to unilaterally revert a reversion to default/previous position. (You could perhaps argue that adding a new question is more akin to writing a new article where we usually default to keep.) You could perhaps also argue that if the content being removed has received numerous responses and been there for a few days, it has greater merit of a consensus to stay then a consensus for removal but I would say that's a difficult call since it's not uncommon respondents don't object to a removal and may even support it. Note that in an article, if someone reverts some changes and initiates discussion, even if the changes have been there for a few days, I personally, and I'm quite sure many others would not generally object to that nor would I revert the reversion until at least trying to some sort of consensus via discussion. There are of course exceptions e.g. relating to BLP when it's generally accepted the removal of problematic content can be enforced with repeated reversals if necessary regardless of how long it's been in an article. And if I'm absolutely sure the reversion was in clear violation of policy, e.g. if someone added a source to an unsourced claim and it was reverted because 'Fox News/Al Jazeera is evil'. Or if someone removed an unreferenced claim and this was reverted because 'I know it's right'. (I.E. If I was sure anyone who understood policy would agree with me.) But if there was a legitimate reasoning even if I disagreed with it I don't think I would revert nor would I encourage others to until the discussion has taken place. In this case IMHO whichever side your on, I don't think it's a clear cut case of this definitely being or not being medical advice and the lack of consensus also demonstrates such, so a removal followed by a discussion and then a reversal if that's the consensus would IMHO be the normal/best practice way to deal with things per non RD qolicy. To use a counter example, if this were a removal of a post from October's archives, I probably would regard a unilateral removal generally unjustified and a reversion of that removal acceptable, even if I felt the removal was probably the best course. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to follow your statements because of the use of the word "reversion", which could either mean deletion (reversion to a blank state) or restores (reversion of the previous deletion). The Ref Desk is a talk page, not an article, as evidenced by us leaving signatures. Thus, the Wikipedia rules for deletion from someone else's talk page (or an article talk pgae) should apply here. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give StuRat the last word, since we've been 'round this issue many times and it's not necessary to rehash the prior arguments or established consensus. This is my last response to him in this thread.

I do think it's important to note that the "All pages on Wikipedia must be either 'Talk' pages or 'Article' pages" meme is misleading. Wikipedia has a number of special-purpose pages which operate by special rules (implicit or explicit) for special purposes. The fact that a page contains signed comments does not make a page a talk page in the sense that StuRat suggests. WP:RFA, WP:RFArb, WP:AN, WP:RfC — all of these pages have signed comments from editors, but all also have special rules about the time, place, and manner of posting which go far beyond the restrictions we impose on user talk pages.

Guidelines for comments and conduct on the Reference Desk were established through wide discussion and participation, and through much blood, sweat, and tears. Please don't dismiss the good-faith efforts, contributions, and compromises of a large group of editors as the work of some nefarious 'deletionists'. When the guidelines were established, I think that everyone understood that the Ref Desk was a special case, and that that was why it required special guidelines. Regardless of whether or not he likes the current wording, as the creator of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines page StuRat can hardly claim to be unaware that the Ref Desk should operate differently from a userspace or article-space talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would consider WP:RFA, WP:RFArb, WP:AN, and WP:RfC to be talk pages, as well. But, whatever you call them, do any of them allow unilateral deletion of other people's comments, without first seeking consensus ? If so, do they allow unilateral deletion of an entire thread, when many people have already contributed, without first seeking consensus ? I'm guessing not at all, or at least only in the most clear-cut and abusive cases. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

missing from archive?

On November 20 on the Misc. desk, a questioner asked about being able to discern the sex of someone by their writing. Their question title was Identify the sex of someone by their words I distinctly recall there being quite a bit of talk about it and somewhere in there we got a link to website that actually purports to be able to do just that. I don't recall the exact question, but if we had a reasonable discussion and a working link, why wasn't the question archived? Was it the case that the link was in the question and we never answered the request for further info? I wanted to check out the website again (I'm sure I can Google it now) and I was surprised the section was gone (though there was certainly an odd edit at the top of that page!). Who actually looks after the archives? Matt Deres (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is there, but because it is a subsection of the question about the lanky sister, it has not been linked directly from the archive index. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed so that it appears in the archive list now, for your convenience here is a direct link Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 20#Identify the sex of someone by their words. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think what threw me off was that, under My Contributions, my edit was listed as having been done to the section called Identify the sex of someone by their words, so when I searched the archive, which only lists the titles, I did a FireFox search for "sex" and got no hits. Thanks again. Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

don't feed the trolls

I removed a long trolling back and forth Guy starts controversial topic off by claiming something not true, people call him on it, repeats untruths, people get frustrated, tells people to AGF, back and forth back and forth, pretty soon we've got 20K of this stuff. So I pruned it. Just FYI. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% concur, I have no issue with that removal (or with your reverting ClueBot when it assumed that edit was vandalism). Let's keep the trolls *under* the bridge, not standing in the way of the billygoats. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give a valid explanation as to why my question was removed. This appears to be a clear case of vandalism possibly motivated by a hidden agenda. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said possibly motivated by a hidden agenda. What other explanation is there for why there can be so many frequent and blatant violations of Wikipedia policy such as assume good faith, no personal attacks, and civilty?

I've been extremely patient and polite despite constant harrassment by other Wikipedia editors. Although several people have engaged in personal attacks, I have not done so in return.

I don't want it to come to this, but if this cannot be resolved satisfactorily, I will take this up with Wikipedia's conflict of resolution process.

So far, no one has provided a single reason why asking if Obama is one of the unnamed individuals in the FBI affidavit, and if so, which one should be censored. No one has even bothered giving a reason. Thank you. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you had left the question at that, it would probably have remained intact. However the subsequent discussion including your additional statements such as "Obama would certainly be involved in the selection of his own candidates" which you then changed to "Of course Obama is involved in the selection of his own cabinet" and "First, yes, there was a bribe to Obama " was disruptive to both the Reference Desk and Wikipedia, and that alone warranted removal. --LarryMac | Talk 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the difference between "Obama would certainly be involved in the selection of his own candidates" and "Of course Obama is involved in the selection of his own cabinet". I was referring to the same thing. Would "Obama would certainly be involved in the selection of his own candidates for his own cabinet" be better? Even if it is, why are the previous phrasings objectionable?

As for "First, yes, there was a bribe to Obama", are you attempting to distinguish between a) Blagojevich discussing offering a bribe to Obama with b) Blagojevich actually making a bribe to Obama? IWO, Blagojevich and his people discussed it but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually made the offer?

At this point, I'm extremely concerned with the way I have been treated. I've been very polite and honest, and I've been attacked repeatedly for no apparent valid reason. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and start a "conflict of resolution" complaint, whatever that is. I think it's been made clear to you that your posts here not appropriate for the RefDesk. If it will make you feel better to hear that from someone else, then do what you need to. Matt Deres (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had no actual objection to the thread before it was removed. I thought the discussion was on the whole productive and informative. The content of the thread did not seem particularly inappropriate. However, every single action taken by 216.239 SINCE the thread was removed, including the accusations of "hidden agendas" and grand conspiracies and accusations of bad faith, and wikilawyering over NPA and other policies have made me rethink my understanding of the intent of that thread. Based purely on the thread content, no it did not seem problematic. Based on the actions taken after the thread was removed, I have serious doubts as to the motivations of the person who posted it initially. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened was that emotion got the better of people. I was hoping for an intelligent answer and instead I was repeatedly attacked contrary to Wikipedia policies. As for "accusations of 'hidden agendas'", I said possibly. I'm open to other explanations. In fact, I even asked for a different explanation and so far, no one has provided one. As for grand conspiracies, that's a straw man. As for my motivation, I wanted to know if Obama was mentioned in the FBI affidavit and if so, under what name. Wow, that's quite the scandal. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On that point, I agree with you 100%. There was nothing in the thread that seemed problematic to me. However, to bring up "hidden agendas" is rediculous. To insert qualifying words like "possibly" before those words does nothing to mitigate them. They are words which put and end to civil discourse, and they do not show a level of respect for others when you claim the "possibility" that they may have a "hidden agenda". Thus I stand by my statements; the thread was not a problem, but how you have acted since the thread has been removed has made me question your motivations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Some of the editors could simply be Obama supporters who are offended by the possibility that this scandal might taint Obama and that's why they reacted in the way that they did. Maybe 'hidden agenda' might be a bad term. Perhaps bias is a better word, I don't know. I think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the way they acted, and if it's not, you tell me why. And for the record, civil discourse had already ended by that time (but not by me).

In any case, with the news that Senate Candidate 1 is Valerie Jarrett (Obama's pick) and Senate Candidate 5 is Jesse Jackson, Jr, so I don't think that Individual D is Obama since Individual D was promoting Jackson, not Jarrett. At this point, I don't think any of the unnamed individuals are Obama. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think, case in point, above. Grade-A trolling, down to misrepresentation of past actions, allegations of hidden agendas in those who aren't interested in playing ball, and faux sense of outrage. Are we done here? Can we get back to actually answering questions rather than managing trolls? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Another personal attack. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with "First, yes, there was a bribe to Obama", as this seems to say that the bribe was accepted, which would be a felony on Obama's part, when the bribe was merely offered. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for actually giving me something specific. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Obama had actually accepted the bribe. Pardon my neivity, but I thought that was pretty obvious that no deal was struck given the fact that the Senate seat is still open. Someone could have simply asked me to clarify my orginal question to say something to that effect. That would have been a lot more helpful than launching accusations.

If it helps, I will clearly state for the record that to the best of my knowledge:

- Obama did NOT accept Blagojevich's bribe.

- Obama may not even have known that Blagojevich wanted to offer a bribe.

I simply wanted to know if one of the unnamed individuals in the FBI report might have been Obama.

Thank you again for giving me something specific. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the idea that Blagojevich was even potentially offering Obama a bribe came from: what's alleged is that Blagojevich was asking for a bribe, not offering one. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I was sloppy with my wording. Blagojevich wanted a bribe from Obama, not the other way around. I probably should have said 'soliciting a bribe'. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You were repeatedly sloppy then. You first stated, "including a bribe to Obama" instead of "I think there may be a bribe intended for Obama." Then, in response to the fact the article and affidavit didn't support the claim that there was a bribe to Obama, you stated "Actually, they do" instead of "bad wording, I meant he wanted a bribe." Then, when told again that there is no implication against Obama, you speculate, "It will be very interesting if Obama is arrested." For what? The bribe? That is halfway into the thread and you continually push your claim that there was a bribe. Now, you are trying to claim that you didn't say there was a bribe and it was just bad (repeated) wording. That is why people have called 'troll' on this. -- kainaw™ 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the focus of my question was about the identity of unnamed individuals, not the bribe itself. You could have simply clarified that the bribe would have been from Obama rather than to Obama but even still that distinction is pretty much irrelevent since it would be illegal for both parties regardess of who the giver was and who the receiver was. For what? If Obama entered in negotiations regarding the bribe, I would think that would be illegal so that's what I was referring to. In fact, I want to ask a follow up question if it's illegal for a government official to enter negotionations in regards to a bribe but I don't want to get attacked again. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your initial question was no different than something like, "Obama raped and killed my grandmother!!! Can I get apples instead of fries with my Happy Meal?" Making a ridiculous and unfounded claim is the focus of the discussion - nobody will care to answer the question. You were not attacked. You were told repeatedly that your unfounded claim that there was a bribe was unfounded. Your refusal to accept that you made repeatedly made an unfounded claim is what got you labelled as a troll. Nobody woke up and decided to attack anyone who uses your IP address. If you still cannot see that your "innocent" question was obscured by your unfounded claim, then you are continuing to play dumb - which is a standard troll action. -- kainaw™ 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a terrible analogy. If someone is rapes and kills someone, the victim hasn't committed a crime, only the perpertrator. With bribery, both the giver and the reciever have committed a crime.

No, the most likely explanation is the one I've already provided. Some of the editors might simply be Obama supporters who are offended by the possibility that this scandal might taint Obama and that's why they reacted in the way that they did. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what: I'll apologise for calling you a troll and assuming bad faith if you'll stop assuming bad faith of the people who called you a troll. Your question and subsequent comments were worded in such a way as to suggest that you were assuming Obama was involved in the deal itself and that he had received a bribe, and saying that people who read them that way are "Obama supporters who are offended by the possibility that this scandal might taint Obama", with or without weasel words, is not helping your case. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not interesting in a deal just because some editors have eggs on their face. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear test we can apply here. When someone asks a question, genuinely wanting an answer, they don't argue with the answers they get. They might query a missing detail - or clarify a point in the question - but the moment they cross the line to arguing with a respondant about their response - you know you have someone who was never expecting a decent answer to genuine curiosity - but is in fact trying to pick a fight or find supporters for a cause. When that line is crossed the OP moves from being a seeker of knowledge to becoming a troll. When that happens, we have to move from being helpful chatty people - to "not feeding the troll" mode when we simply refuse to talk to the user in question. That line was most certainly crossed more than once in this case - so let's just call this one a day - draw a line under this thread and refuse to answer any further questions from this user. SteveBaker (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of note... When this thread started, I left a note telling others that this is a troll. Do not respond. Within minutes, my note was removed and responses started. The eagerness to feed trolls is very strong in many people. -- kainaw™ 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think removing posts was allowed but they may have done it because you were in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - we have to kill this 'culture' of removing people's posts that we don't agree with. It' really shouldn't be allowed. SteveBaker (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the irony. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost ... I thought this page and subsequent talk page was dedicated to computers and IT questions. I know I'm very new, but wouldn't this type of thing quickly get either removed, or "moved" to a political section by an admin? Ched Davis (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference desks all share a talk page. So you probably got here from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, whereas this thread is about a discussion on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. --Fullobeans (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)