![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why was my general question about diet and statins deleted?-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
sorry I had missed all the discussion on my innocent question. If it has caused argument I regret it. However I would like to know the effect of statins on someone who eats a high sat fat diet, so I have reposted my question in a more general manner on the science page. I hope this is satisfactory.-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Too much politicking here for my liking. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For reference, since the open secret of TreeSmiler's identity is now out in the open, I have suggested terms of his parole on User talk:TreeSmiler#Your open secret.... I suspect it's what everyone was already thinking, but since there hasn't actually been any 'sooper sekrit cabal decree' on the issue, I put something in writing. Admins who find those terms of parole acceptable are encouraged to sign on there. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that anyone who focuses on the ref desk and is always testing the limits reminds me of light current. Were there ever off-wiki discussions? David D. (Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here?!? The open secret of a banned editor returning was made explicitly non-secret, and now it's a big drama? Why? This has nothing to do with any secret cabals- many editors (including Ten, as far as I know) are skeptical of using private off-wiki communication unless there's a very good reason for it. There's no cabal-ish boogyman here unless you really go out of your way to invent your own. This happens occasionally with LC socks (and I'm sure it happens all the time with other socks; it's a big wiki.) What exactly is the cause for alarm or upset here? Friday (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
TreeSmiler (and now 79.76.132.44), let me make it absolutely clear that I did not need Ten or Sluzzelin or anyone else to tell me, either on or off Wiki, that you were yet another sock of Lightcurrent. All that was required was a minimum level of intelligence and insight, an ability to read the signs. I suspected it was you from your early exchanges with Rockpocket. A suspicion turned into a certainty as your editing pattern established itself. There it all was; the same tactics, the same interventions, the same mode of expression. You are too, too obvious. But none of this matters. I never had any problems with you in the past, always finding you puerile and impish, rather than malevolent. But you are disruptive; and while I accept the opinions of people I respect, like David and Ten, that you can make some useful contributions, I believe that this is far outweighed by your need to make mischief. I personally believe that Ten is being remarkably tolerant in offering you a lifeline, and not cutting you off as soon as he became aware of your true identity. If I were in his position I would simply have added TreeSmiler to the long list of Lightcurrent socks, and make sure that you did not return in this or any other form. But then I am not an administrator, nor ever intend to be. I do not have the patience of Job. Finally,-and I am sorry to have to say this,-but those, like DuncanHill, who turned this into a silly Wiki drama have done you no service at all. Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Adding something inspite of this section being archived, because I feel it is worth adding)
Please try to forget about all the drama, and continue doing what you all do best. Volunteering, spreading knowledge, helping out at the desks. Like all jesters, Lc is likable enough to the soft ones among us, but he's not worth forgetting why we're here. I wish Duncan returned, I wish I didn't know this talk page existed, And of course I wish we all sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya. --- Sluzzelin talk 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) This is a contribution after the archiving, for which I apologise. I'd just like to make it clear, since it was asked, that I have never discussed any of this off-wiki. I'm pretty sure Sluzzelin's link is the same place I was refering too, although I may have encountered the same sentiment elsewhere on-wiki. Skittle ( talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is my contribution after the archiving, for which I too, apologise. I seem to have been the catalyst (not the root cause) for yet more acrimony and bitterness and editors leaving WP. ALL these sad events, of course, were totally unnecessary and were solely caused by Tens totally paranoid and vindictive nature (on which he should seek professional advice IMO). Since this posting is contrary to Tens unilaterally formulated rules against me, I fully expect the TreeSmiler account to be indef blocked forthwith. I therefore preempt this action by declaring my immediate resignation from WP. I hope now everyone is happy. But just ask yourselves the question: how many more good editors can WP afford to lose before it becomes a complete joke??-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
|
The header on each reference desk reads:
Do not request medical or legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need medical or legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
According to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, questions soliciting medical advice or answers giving it should be removed on sight. I'll assume for the sake of argument that the same applies to legal advice.
I often see questions on the Reference Desk that skirt the boundary of seeking or offering medical/legal advice. They're not clear-cut enough to remove, but there is a potential issue. My usual practice when I see this is to note that "The Reference Desk cannot give legal/medical advice" (which I should probably link to the disclaimers) and then ensure that the question is answered as best as possible within the guidelines.
Unfortunately, and this is the issue I'm raising here for discussion, my practice appears to be regarded as inappropriate by some RD responders who reply raising the issue of whether the question or answer does constitute medical/legal advice. Here are some examples (signatures omitted to reduce drama):
Now, if I believed that something was a clear-cut case of medical/legal advice I would have removed it. By instead noting this restriction and then doing my best to make sure the question is answered within policy, I believe I'm signalling that I believe the latter is possible. Notwithstanding, I feel that reiterating our policy in these cases is important — for the benefit of Wikipedia, responders, and questioners in different ways — and for that reason, I fear that explicitly gainsaying or weakening this restriction is potentially harmful.
So, I'm seeking comments on whether I'm right to identify this grey area of borderline questions where we don't remove it but nevertheless ought to be especially careful in our responses. Bovlb ( talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another example:
Thanks to all for your comments. I conclude that I should continue to remind people of guidelines in borderline cases. Unfortunately, I am left with the problem that I get a response like the examples above almost every time I do so. Not only does this detract from the effect of my reminder, but it induces self-doubt in me. Maybe I should work on my phrasing, or link to this discussion, or extend the guidelines. Or maybe I should just ignore such responses. Bovlb ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the comments. I see I need to change my conclusion. :) It seems that the intent of my terse reminders has been unclear to people.
Given that legal/medical advice, or requests for it, should be removed on sight, a message suggesting that previous posts should be ignored or removed would indeed be pointless. On the contrary, my messages weakly implied the opposite: that I had considered whether the forgoing text should be removed and concluded that it should not. This is why these responses have puzzled me. What I have been attempting to do with these warnings is two-fold (and varies across queries): advise the original poster that any advice received (including my own) should not be interpreted as constituting medical or legal advice; and remind subsequent responders to adhere to the guidelines. Maybe that was too complex a intent to achieve in half a dozen words.
Ironically, (given that the implicit theme of this discussion is the inability of RD posters to read the instructions at the top of the page) I see that the instructions on the top of this page give a better place for this discussion to have taken place. Bovlb ( talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Geesh everybody! What do you mean that I can't play in that part of the playground - I remember plenty of times that what's-'is-name played there and nobody said nothing so, why not me? Why am I labeled a troll just for doing what was successfully done before? How come the rules change over time and how come the rules of 2004 aren't the same as the rules of 2008? If anyone agrees with me about this then we should all
quit the RD together. That'll teach learn 'em! --
ojndyh
klat 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted his most recent ramble from the Miscellaneous desk. I think the suggestion that a block be applied is worthy. Supporters? SpockMuppet ( talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the question at the bottom of this page because it seemed to be asking for legal advice (even though it said it wasn't) regarding spying on confidential information TheGreatZorko ( talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Get him to rephrase the question. We don't need the preamble. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Y'all have been had!
Too bad.
Y'all have been had!
We ought to be sad.
Y'all have been had!
Yet some are glad.
Y'all have been had!
Y'all have been had!
hydnjo
talk 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I removed it again. The least we can do is ask him to rephrase the question. If he is unwilling to do it then its not a real question but more designed to garner exactly the response it got. Less distractions on the ref desk would be nice. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It will end up being a big debate about morality. Isn't it obvious? Get him to just ask the technical question, the computer ref desk is not Dear Abby. I took it back down because there was no clear consensus to replace it. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
New template, purely decorative. Also works as {{ )}}. I should add that I have no idea why I created it.--VectorPotential Talk 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After a tedious game of "find the missing </div> tag" I have finally perfected my change to {{ RD-deleted}}. When using {{subst:RD-deleted}} it will automatically sign for the person using the template. When you don't subst it (this was the tricky part that was driving me nuts trying to get it just right) it produces the familiar boilerplate message surrounded by a gray border in small font, rather than an ugly bright red message asking you to subst it. This way it doesn't break any previous uses of the template that haven't been subst'd.--VectorPotential Talk 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Examples:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RD-deleted with sbst: This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis. -- hydnjo talk 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)RD-deleted without sbst: This question has been removed. Per the
reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical
diagnosis,
prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on
the Reference Desk's talk page.
|
#Claims of Evidence for Other Religions as One True Religion. This is what, the fourth or fifth time this question has been posted and replied to politely? Many users have answered the question sufficiently before. Should we revert this one as spamming and do the same for any further incarnations of this question that the OP posts? -- S.dedalus ( talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a question which pertained to the veracity of a statement by Kevin Trudeau. I replied that he had been convicted of fraud before, is often in legal hot water for making false claims, and, in my opinion, makes his money by being a snake-oil peddler, selling the idea of hidden "natural cures" to things like cancer and AIDS to desperate people. This was removed by User:Corvus cornix as a violation of WP:BLP. I think this is a little silly. For one thing, everything of a strictly factual nature that I've pointed out is actually in his biography, plus my own interpretations, of course, but I think those are fairly obvious. For another, if we're asked questions about the veracity of people, are we not allowed to reply, "Sorry, I wouldn't believe them on this" and point to reasons why not? Maybe we should put a rule at the top along with "legal" and "medical" advice that says "we will not answer any questions about living people that they wouldn't be happy with"? Have we sunken so low? -- 98.217.18.109 ( talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
←undent I'm worried that we'll end up in a situation where we have
The response links to our well-sourced article, but does not footnote its assertions. There's no arguing that this response makes a very serious claim about a living person. Should it be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, or does the wikilink to our thoroughly-sourced article satisfy BLP policy to a degree sufficient for the transient, short-answer format of the Ref Desks? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember -- and staggeringly easy to forget -- that the Reference Desk guidelines are... guidelines. We don't have hard-and-fast rules or 100% objective litmus tests for what is and isn't appropriate to post. It has always been thus, and in fact it's not a bug that we don't have 100% objective litmus tests: it's a feature.
No one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk. Most of the time, the thing to do when you see something posted which you find inappropriate is: politely comment on it. Don't delete it; don't call the poster an idiot or a vandal or a troll; just say: "I think that was inappropriate."
What happens next is just as important, or more significantly, what doesn't happen next. The poster of the arguably-inappropriate material can issue a polite apology, or not. But there's no need for the poster to get all defensive about it, and we certainly don't need to get into a heated argument or a remove-it/no,revert-it/no,remove-it-again edit war. Remember: no one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk.
In particular, criticisms of the appropriateness of RD posts are not and should not be turned into polarized, dichotomized, slippery-slope, all-or-nothing hyperboles. If I suggest that something you said was inappropriate, it does not mean that no one can say anything remotely like that ever again. If you disagree that what you posted was inappropriate, that does not mean that the whole enterprise is going to devolve into a degenerate cesspool. But over time, the net result of a dozen or a hundred polite requests (some honored and some disagreed with) will be, on average, that we hover around, but stay mostly on the right side of, the impossible-to-define line of appropriateness. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what we want to do. — Steve Summit ( talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at BLPN. Corvus cornix talk 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Umm, 69.221.252.179, see Kevin Trudeau." would be a fine RD response and wouldn't have ignited this wall of prose but WTF, bits are cheap now (aren't they?). -- hydnjo talk 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue seems to be rather complicated to me. Generally per WP:BLP we should not discuss our personal opinions of people on wikipedia at all, not even on talk pages where it's off topic anyway. It's true we do sometimes turn a blind eye, particularly with stuff like 'Bush is an idiot' but people are perfectly entilted to and do remove comments from talk pages (and definitely articles) about a living person all the time. In my opinion, the RD is not exempt even though it's perhaps not OT. In otherwords IMHO it's okay person X has been convinced of multiple crimes including making false claims if that's sourced e.g. from the article. However in as much as possible people should avoid giving personal opinions of someone. Let's assume our readers are not dumb and able to come to their own conclusions... If you do want to give opinions I would suggest you take NPA to heed which while not technically applicable gives some helpful hints. It's not so bad to say 'I believe most or all of the stuff person X sells is junk' since you are discuss stuff rather then a person directly. You aren't prescribing any motives to him (he might really believe in the stuff he says about the stuff he says or perhaps he has been conned by someone else into thinking the stuff he sells does what he says) Nil Einne ( talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As a former regular here, may I extend my condolences to you all that the RDs seem to be undergoing one of their periodic bouts of angst and anguish. For those of you who've not been here that long, you may be comforted by the knowledge that these things are cyclical and almost predictable. In fact, that prompts me to ask a question at the Science Ref Desk. Meanwhile, I refer you all to WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY, which, if I recall, was originally inspired by Ref Desk angst. With love to all who frequent these pages in the hopes of helping others, even if you don't always agree with each other, and especially if you remember lil ol me... -- Dweller ( talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Crisis, what crisis? No angst, no anguish, no stress, and no arguments for the sake of arguments! I am more than happy with things as they are and can well do without the 'former glory', thank you very much. Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kainaw, when I deleted that question about exercise and illness, I was going by this guideline. But you responded, "If you want it deleted, you must discuss it on the talk page." Can you point me to the relevant guideline or policy that says we need to discuss on the talk page before deleting medical questions? It seems to me like we might need to revise the guideline I cited to reflect this. -- Allen ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So... Physics Magazine Guy. We've pretty well established that he's really Homework Copy Guy, and in any event, it appears that he posts without ever returning anyway (and that's just this month's already-archived examples). Is it time to just start deleting these walls of text that we've basically resolved not to answer? — Lomn 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a copy of a final response I gave in a discussion on the Humanities Desk (Image Highly Disturbing, 13 February) concerning the removal of images from several Wikipedia articles. This, I consider, to be a new and disturbing departure in forms of censorship. Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Which part do you find a new departure? This is by no means the first edit war we've seen over image inclusion. The only interesting feature I discern is that it was discussed for a few lines on an RD before someone got around a deletion which, like you, I deplore. --
Tagishsimon
(talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed this question. It appears to me that this is clearly asking Warfarin will interfere with the OP's unnamed heart condition. We cannot and, in my opinion, should not answer this question. -- kainaw ™ 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Diff. See 71.175.125.54 contribs -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The responses to this question have evolved along predictable lines to become a bunch of sniping crap. Should something be done before it turns into a full-blown flame war? -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not we have the same question on the science desk. We could nuke them? That would be in the spirit of the question. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We can and do remove discussions when they stray off topic or start to sound like a flame war. We discuss here first, then we remove if that's what people agree. We haven't done so recently because we haven't needed to. 130.88.140.115 ( talk) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
After five years, I've finished writing my first novel, a seventeenth century space opera. I could never have done it without Wikipedia, and especially the Reference Desks. I mainly haunt the Science, Humanities and Language desks, where I've been continually astonished by how far people are willing to go to help a stranger. If the book is published, it will include an acknowledgements page, where I'll express my gratitude, and also list a few of you by name - Sluzzelin, Clio the Muse, Lambiam, EricR, NunhUh, and Hydnjo spring to mind - but I'm worried that I might be missing someone - they're strange names that don't commend themselves to the memory - so this is your chance to remind me who you are ... And also, to those I've listed above, is it ok if I mention you, and have I got your names right?
Thanks yet again.
Adambrowne666 ( talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, hi Rockpocket - yes, you're in there too - and Corvus Cornix... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrowne666 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here? Why is no one complaining? :) p.s. if you've been here five years there is no doubt StuRat helped you out. Speaking of which, welcome back StuRat, I saw he asked a question on the science desk. David D. (Talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, David - StuRat, of course. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Richard - but then again I've long had a problem with going off prematurely - we'll wait and see. Not sure what to do about your request, Clio/Anastasia - can we retire to a quieter corner of the internet to talk about it further? Adambrowne666 ( talk) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who's noticed that his space opera is set in the 17th century? Galileo was being put on trial for heresy for defending the heliocentric theory.. not exactly a spaceflight level of technology :D\=< ( talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Jack - you were one of the helpers too, weren't you? Yes, writing's a murderous art. I've sent mine to an agent who works for a friend of mine, and also an editor at Tor books who likes my stuff. You should check out the Donald Maas agency website - they put up a page listing 'What we're looking for this month' - in February, one of the things they wanted was a literary historical science fantasy, so I couldn't pass that up. -- Froth, you're right - but the thing with fantastic fiction is that it always has to be set somewhere Other. Used to be in flying castles across the sea, then it was among the steaming jungles of Venus and the canals of Mars, then it was among the stars. Each time, when we discovered that the lands across the sea are as mundane as our own, that Venus is a rock and so is Mars, we kept setting our tales further away, in places that were still mysterious - romance needs mystery. And now we're in the future, and it's as mundane as everywhere else - the solution is to go into the past, which will always be Other. That's how steampunk came about, I reckon. The conceit with mine is that it was written by someone extrapolating on the science of the time, just as a sf writer does in 2008... Adambrowne666 ( talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wm Gibson says those who think sf is about the future are fooling themselves. My style of sf, set in the past, is more about culture and literature and the history of science than science itself, and so there's no chance of fooling yourself as you read it that this is what the future holds. Still, you have a point, Froth - the genre can have a role in popularising and extrapolating the science that's happening right now, and even influence the direction science takes, and I'm not delivering on that part of the bargain, so some sf readers won't get into it at all, which is perfectly fair enough. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This diff removed from RD/S. Claims of "I don't want a diagnosis" notwithstanding, the OP is asking for a medical second opinion. If somebody wants to run down the list of possible skin bumps, I've got no issue, but I think the question as stated is fundamentally flawed. — Lomn 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll refrain from offering an opinion on the motive for this. But after MrRedact did the inevitable [8], Nricardo decided to answer the question anyway (despite the fact it was no longer there) with a confident, but unsourced opinion on what is or is not legal. [9]
We all know the different arguments arguments about this, God knows we have heard them often enough and I have a nagging feeling we are going to be hearing them again in the near future, but simply ignoring the fact that a question has been removed and offering an answer for anyway results in a non sequitur (and not a funny one). I therefore removed the entire section, since a answer without a question is about as useful as a surfboard with handlebars. Please folks, if you have an issue with a removal such as this, politely question it in the correct forum (i.e here) just don't ignore it and offer your answer anyway. Rockpocke t 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An anon user, whose IPs start 85, has been answering questions on the misc. desk by putting a link to the forum anontalk and no other attempt at answering. This seems like quite obvious spam to me, but they have been putting them back when they have been removed, even calling it 'reverting vandalism' in the edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=194172087&oldid=194171014. I'd post a message to their talk page asking them to stop, but it looks like a dynamic IP. So I shall put this here instead. Skittle ( talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say how much I'm enjoying myself at the Desks again. Today, I was inspired by a thread at the Humanities Desk to write Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded to this question that "unless Gravel specifically announced his reasons for remaining in the race, it would be speculation for us to say why." I was not aware that the reference desk is exempted from WP:NOR. Is that indeed the case? In my understanding, the function of our reference desk is primarily to give reference to factual information, such as that contained in our articles. Or at least published speculation.
This seemed to me a textbook example of soliciting a debate. I was accused of "polluting the responses" for pointing this out. Dforest ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, Dforest, it's very difficult to stop this kind of thing. It's best just to ignore 'invitations to debate' and speculations about speculation. I always do! Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and opinions. While you all have some good ideas, I particularly identify with Lambiam's comments. When I posted my initial response to the question, I first thought about responding with the plausible reasons Gravel would still be running. But I realized that would amount to speculation. I considered there may be some published opinion on the issue, but it would be difficult to cite while maintaining a neutral point of view. So I thought it would be in our best interest to stick to factual information about the issue, and advise the asker why we generally avoid speculation on these issues. I think one of the best points about our reference desk is that we have these guidelines to avoid original research and starting debates. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other services like Yahoo Answers, where people routinely do, as Lambiam was lamenting, respond with opinions or guesses as if they were established facts. Dforest ( talk) 11:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And awaited for. So you guys can be a complete reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseVisitTheAppropriatePagesRegardingSaidTopic ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to link a Wikipedia article on the 2007-2008 Kenyan crisis (it's there; believe me!) into an answer I gave on the Humanities Desk to a question about the contemporary effects of nineteenth century imperialism, but for some reason I cannot get it the blasted thing go blue! Am I doing something wrong? Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There’s another Clio thread on the Humanities desk. (At least this one isn’t asking for her hand in marriage!) You know Clio, I believe your user page my soon be one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia. :) If only we could check. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No vandals, though; well, not too many. I must be doing something wrong! Clio the Muse ( talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Noetica ( contribs) has taken in recent times (or I have recently noticed) to changing question titles to what she/he considers to be more meaningful. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the changes do appear to be more meaningful. On the other hand, I pity the poor user searching for answers to his question, using the original title as they search key. any thoughts? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Misc Desk: -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The humor is appreciated, but why is it when someone reports spotting a UFO, they're ridiculed ? I have read the Robertson Panel article, and it says that to "reduce" intrest in UFOs, a debunking program is to be initiated. Debunk does mean ridicule, and that is what has been going on here. I have also read some of the discussion pages on UFO and what not and they indicate that IF there is alien contact, all fucking hell will break loose as the people revolt against all authority. Some will do so for religious reasons, some, for vengeance.
When someone wishes to report a UFO, they should go to the UFO article, UFO related article, pick a website hosted by a organization that will investigate the incident, incl. the person making the claim, all without someone ridiculing them. (Alien contact can happen right now or 100,000 years from now.) This should cut down on the ridicule, if not eliminate it.
Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED.
By the way, Wikipedia is one hell of a site. Keep up the good work. 65.173.104.52 ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been BOLD and changed the Entertainment desk's blurb on WP:RD to include sports. Now this important topic doesn't have to be relegated to the misc. desk, and I can give the Tim Cahills of the world the same level of attention I have always given the Paris Hiltons. -- Sean 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that sports should go in Miscellaneous. Entertainment to me implies music, movies, TV comedies and dramas, and the like. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(<--- outdent) Ok, I normally don't do this, but as we are discussing semantics, definitions of entertainment include
The first dictionary definition I found included:
The word "sport" is derived from the French word for leisure, and dictionary definitions of sport also emphasize the aspect of diversion, for example:
I have no strong feelings on whether to include sports as a sub-category of entertainment, but in the case of reference desks, I see the advantages per LarryMac, and I think both spectator sports and individual sport activities are closely connected to entertainment. I do, in fact, believe there is a healthy overlap of people who are interested in popular culture and people who are interested in sports. Should we rename the desk "diversion"? --- Sluzzelin talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just pulled the last two Tim Cahill threads, because it was obvious that it was (apparently two different people) just getting their jollies. Tim Cahill(7) was an anon asking "Has Tim Cahill ever been arrested for doing anything illegal in a mask? ;) ", while Tim Cahill(8) was a smartass asking "Who the f... is Tim Cahill?".
Enough already. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
...And I've now blocked T Cahill ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious troll. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the real Tim Cahill ever reads this stuff about him. He's probably too busy making mega-bucks to have time for Wikipedia. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per guidelines, diff here. (How do I do a diff?) -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We've got Dodgson here! Anyone happen to notice that my awesome header inexplicably works again? No more need to use Lambiam's flat-ish hack. Not that anyone cares or that anyone would even notice (unless Lambiam made some little formatting tweaks that I didn't notice, in which case please do tell) (or unless you use the WP:RD/TOOLS script I wrote a while back to put a nav bar at the bottom of the desk pages-- the nice box hightlights work now) but I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that it was the server weirding out, not my code >:| :D\=< ( talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Question removed [11] per Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. (EhJJ) TALK 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
in section
add
search Wikipedia using Google
Alanthehat (
talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(also changed the color a bit on the left column) :D\=< ( talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with this? Who had the authority to WP:CSD#G7 it? That subpage was a mile long and most of it was written by me-- I definitely didn't request deletion. :D\=< ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it was moved to User:Vector Potential/Wikipedia:Reference desk/style change Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made a template by copying and modifying {{subst:
RD removal}}. That original template is mentioned in
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice as the one to put on the offended editor's talk page, but the text of it had nothing to do with medical advice, or any advice, for that matter:
"...Please remember that Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, original research should be avoided and that the Reference Desk is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum....".
The new text reads:
"...Please remember the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations...."
I would like to put the new template, {{subst:
RD medremoval}}, in the guidelines section mentioned above in place of the RD removal template. What say ye? --
Milkbreath (
talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe such questions are actually real/serious, and have said so as politely (in my terms) as I could.
If true I think that the OP is asking for what amounts to legal advice - He's effectively asking us to act as a health and safety regulations advisor. And so I told him this.
Thought I should mention it here. 87.102.83.204 ( talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A while back, I made WP:HUM as a shortcut to the humanities desk. How to make it appear on top in the header? User:Krator ( t c) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You can hide the entire header by adding the following line to your monobook.css:
#rdheader { display:none; }
Personally I use bookmarks and my WP:RD/TOOLS to navigate the desks so it's a waste of space. Whatever, it's your option. :D\=< ( talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I found that another traced the IP of the question asker - and then commented upon it.
Personally I found this not bad but I can't condone it either.
Would anyone like to give some guidance on this matter, I don't expect that we should behave as if it is some sort of free for all with no boundarys regarding personal information. 87.102.21.171 ( talk) 11:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just found that the IP address of the person who asked the original question is located in San Francisco, California. If this person, by chance, attends the San Francisco Public Schools, then he or she experiences life as a member of a minority group, since whites ...
Hi folks. I need some opinions. I refer you to the thread " Goatse - how does he do that with his butt?" on the Science desk. (I can't link it, as it has a link in the header, sorry). I had no problem with the question, and I even contributed a comment:
A bit of light-hearted banter followed, and then came this:
My first impulse was to ask the poster not to make assumptions, or ask questions, in open forum about the private sexual behaviour of other editors who are known to be gay - or straight for that matter – no matter whether the question was asked in all seriousness, or just as part of a joke.
My second impulse was just to remove the offending post. But then I had a re-think. Maybe I almost unintentionally invited the question when I referred to receptive anal intercourse as "normal for some". Coming from a gay man, I suppose this could easily have been interpreted as meaning "it’s normal for me". But it wasn't meant to refer to me personally at all; I would never talk about my sexual practices (whatever they are) in open forum, or almost anywhere else for that matter. I was merely making a distinction between penetrative anal intercourse - which I think of as involving a penis, and which for many people is considered "normal" - and fisting, which to many, including me, is "grotesque"; and saying that even with the "normal" activity, there's a risk of becoming incontinent with long-term practice, let alone the "grotesque" activity. I was trying to be as clear as possible, because it occurred to me that the term "penetrative anal intercourse" could possibly be taken to include fisting, so I made a ham-fisted (pun) attempt at disambiguation. But on reflection, I think the usual intepretation is the one involving a penis, so the distinction was implicit and didn't need any explanation.
If I had my life over again, I'd have written: "Men who engage long-term in receptive anal intercourse (let alone activities such as fisting) often end up with ..." - but we can't re-write history; and there's no point in striking out the words I would now rather not have written, as it would make a nonsense of the subsequent dialogue (? polylogue).
I’m still left with whether, and if so, how, to respond to the anon’s comment. I don’t want to just leave it hanging – or maybe I should. I don’t want to compound the problem by misinterpreting what was intended to be a humorous aside. Had I been straight, would this question have been asked? Maybe it would have anyway. Maybe he doesn't even know or care what my sexual preference is. Maybe I’m just being a little touchy (I’ve not been sleeping well lately). Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I really can't answer any of these questions without asking him, but I just don't want to get into such a discussion in open forum, and certainly not privately with an unregistered user. I feel quite, quite stuck. What to do?
And here I go assuming the user in question will never read this. Sorry about that, 79.76.144.62. You're more welcome than anybody to have your say. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For all the obvious reasons - such as winding up people. 87.102.124.155 ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why was my general question about diet and statins deleted?-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
sorry I had missed all the discussion on my innocent question. If it has caused argument I regret it. However I would like to know the effect of statins on someone who eats a high sat fat diet, so I have reposted my question in a more general manner on the science page. I hope this is satisfactory.-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Too much politicking here for my liking. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For reference, since the open secret of TreeSmiler's identity is now out in the open, I have suggested terms of his parole on User talk:TreeSmiler#Your open secret.... I suspect it's what everyone was already thinking, but since there hasn't actually been any 'sooper sekrit cabal decree' on the issue, I put something in writing. Admins who find those terms of parole acceptable are encouraged to sign on there. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that anyone who focuses on the ref desk and is always testing the limits reminds me of light current. Were there ever off-wiki discussions? David D. (Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here?!? The open secret of a banned editor returning was made explicitly non-secret, and now it's a big drama? Why? This has nothing to do with any secret cabals- many editors (including Ten, as far as I know) are skeptical of using private off-wiki communication unless there's a very good reason for it. There's no cabal-ish boogyman here unless you really go out of your way to invent your own. This happens occasionally with LC socks (and I'm sure it happens all the time with other socks; it's a big wiki.) What exactly is the cause for alarm or upset here? Friday (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
TreeSmiler (and now 79.76.132.44), let me make it absolutely clear that I did not need Ten or Sluzzelin or anyone else to tell me, either on or off Wiki, that you were yet another sock of Lightcurrent. All that was required was a minimum level of intelligence and insight, an ability to read the signs. I suspected it was you from your early exchanges with Rockpocket. A suspicion turned into a certainty as your editing pattern established itself. There it all was; the same tactics, the same interventions, the same mode of expression. You are too, too obvious. But none of this matters. I never had any problems with you in the past, always finding you puerile and impish, rather than malevolent. But you are disruptive; and while I accept the opinions of people I respect, like David and Ten, that you can make some useful contributions, I believe that this is far outweighed by your need to make mischief. I personally believe that Ten is being remarkably tolerant in offering you a lifeline, and not cutting you off as soon as he became aware of your true identity. If I were in his position I would simply have added TreeSmiler to the long list of Lightcurrent socks, and make sure that you did not return in this or any other form. But then I am not an administrator, nor ever intend to be. I do not have the patience of Job. Finally,-and I am sorry to have to say this,-but those, like DuncanHill, who turned this into a silly Wiki drama have done you no service at all. Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Adding something inspite of this section being archived, because I feel it is worth adding)
Please try to forget about all the drama, and continue doing what you all do best. Volunteering, spreading knowledge, helping out at the desks. Like all jesters, Lc is likable enough to the soft ones among us, but he's not worth forgetting why we're here. I wish Duncan returned, I wish I didn't know this talk page existed, And of course I wish we all sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya. --- Sluzzelin talk 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) This is a contribution after the archiving, for which I apologise. I'd just like to make it clear, since it was asked, that I have never discussed any of this off-wiki. I'm pretty sure Sluzzelin's link is the same place I was refering too, although I may have encountered the same sentiment elsewhere on-wiki. Skittle ( talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is my contribution after the archiving, for which I too, apologise. I seem to have been the catalyst (not the root cause) for yet more acrimony and bitterness and editors leaving WP. ALL these sad events, of course, were totally unnecessary and were solely caused by Tens totally paranoid and vindictive nature (on which he should seek professional advice IMO). Since this posting is contrary to Tens unilaterally formulated rules against me, I fully expect the TreeSmiler account to be indef blocked forthwith. I therefore preempt this action by declaring my immediate resignation from WP. I hope now everyone is happy. But just ask yourselves the question: how many more good editors can WP afford to lose before it becomes a complete joke??-- TreeSmiler ( talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
|
The header on each reference desk reads:
Do not request medical or legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need medical or legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
According to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, questions soliciting medical advice or answers giving it should be removed on sight. I'll assume for the sake of argument that the same applies to legal advice.
I often see questions on the Reference Desk that skirt the boundary of seeking or offering medical/legal advice. They're not clear-cut enough to remove, but there is a potential issue. My usual practice when I see this is to note that "The Reference Desk cannot give legal/medical advice" (which I should probably link to the disclaimers) and then ensure that the question is answered as best as possible within the guidelines.
Unfortunately, and this is the issue I'm raising here for discussion, my practice appears to be regarded as inappropriate by some RD responders who reply raising the issue of whether the question or answer does constitute medical/legal advice. Here are some examples (signatures omitted to reduce drama):
Now, if I believed that something was a clear-cut case of medical/legal advice I would have removed it. By instead noting this restriction and then doing my best to make sure the question is answered within policy, I believe I'm signalling that I believe the latter is possible. Notwithstanding, I feel that reiterating our policy in these cases is important — for the benefit of Wikipedia, responders, and questioners in different ways — and for that reason, I fear that explicitly gainsaying or weakening this restriction is potentially harmful.
So, I'm seeking comments on whether I'm right to identify this grey area of borderline questions where we don't remove it but nevertheless ought to be especially careful in our responses. Bovlb ( talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another example:
Thanks to all for your comments. I conclude that I should continue to remind people of guidelines in borderline cases. Unfortunately, I am left with the problem that I get a response like the examples above almost every time I do so. Not only does this detract from the effect of my reminder, but it induces self-doubt in me. Maybe I should work on my phrasing, or link to this discussion, or extend the guidelines. Or maybe I should just ignore such responses. Bovlb ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the comments. I see I need to change my conclusion. :) It seems that the intent of my terse reminders has been unclear to people.
Given that legal/medical advice, or requests for it, should be removed on sight, a message suggesting that previous posts should be ignored or removed would indeed be pointless. On the contrary, my messages weakly implied the opposite: that I had considered whether the forgoing text should be removed and concluded that it should not. This is why these responses have puzzled me. What I have been attempting to do with these warnings is two-fold (and varies across queries): advise the original poster that any advice received (including my own) should not be interpreted as constituting medical or legal advice; and remind subsequent responders to adhere to the guidelines. Maybe that was too complex a intent to achieve in half a dozen words.
Ironically, (given that the implicit theme of this discussion is the inability of RD posters to read the instructions at the top of the page) I see that the instructions on the top of this page give a better place for this discussion to have taken place. Bovlb ( talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Geesh everybody! What do you mean that I can't play in that part of the playground - I remember plenty of times that what's-'is-name played there and nobody said nothing so, why not me? Why am I labeled a troll just for doing what was successfully done before? How come the rules change over time and how come the rules of 2004 aren't the same as the rules of 2008? If anyone agrees with me about this then we should all
quit the RD together. That'll teach learn 'em! --
ojndyh
klat 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted his most recent ramble from the Miscellaneous desk. I think the suggestion that a block be applied is worthy. Supporters? SpockMuppet ( talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the question at the bottom of this page because it seemed to be asking for legal advice (even though it said it wasn't) regarding spying on confidential information TheGreatZorko ( talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Get him to rephrase the question. We don't need the preamble. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Y'all have been had!
Too bad.
Y'all have been had!
We ought to be sad.
Y'all have been had!
Yet some are glad.
Y'all have been had!
Y'all have been had!
hydnjo
talk 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I removed it again. The least we can do is ask him to rephrase the question. If he is unwilling to do it then its not a real question but more designed to garner exactly the response it got. Less distractions on the ref desk would be nice. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It will end up being a big debate about morality. Isn't it obvious? Get him to just ask the technical question, the computer ref desk is not Dear Abby. I took it back down because there was no clear consensus to replace it. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
New template, purely decorative. Also works as {{ )}}. I should add that I have no idea why I created it.--VectorPotential Talk 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After a tedious game of "find the missing </div> tag" I have finally perfected my change to {{ RD-deleted}}. When using {{subst:RD-deleted}} it will automatically sign for the person using the template. When you don't subst it (this was the tricky part that was driving me nuts trying to get it just right) it produces the familiar boilerplate message surrounded by a gray border in small font, rather than an ugly bright red message asking you to subst it. This way it doesn't break any previous uses of the template that haven't been subst'd.--VectorPotential Talk 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Examples:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RD-deleted with sbst: This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis. -- hydnjo talk 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)RD-deleted without sbst: This question has been removed. Per the
reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical
diagnosis,
prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on
the Reference Desk's talk page.
|
#Claims of Evidence for Other Religions as One True Religion. This is what, the fourth or fifth time this question has been posted and replied to politely? Many users have answered the question sufficiently before. Should we revert this one as spamming and do the same for any further incarnations of this question that the OP posts? -- S.dedalus ( talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a question which pertained to the veracity of a statement by Kevin Trudeau. I replied that he had been convicted of fraud before, is often in legal hot water for making false claims, and, in my opinion, makes his money by being a snake-oil peddler, selling the idea of hidden "natural cures" to things like cancer and AIDS to desperate people. This was removed by User:Corvus cornix as a violation of WP:BLP. I think this is a little silly. For one thing, everything of a strictly factual nature that I've pointed out is actually in his biography, plus my own interpretations, of course, but I think those are fairly obvious. For another, if we're asked questions about the veracity of people, are we not allowed to reply, "Sorry, I wouldn't believe them on this" and point to reasons why not? Maybe we should put a rule at the top along with "legal" and "medical" advice that says "we will not answer any questions about living people that they wouldn't be happy with"? Have we sunken so low? -- 98.217.18.109 ( talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
←undent I'm worried that we'll end up in a situation where we have
The response links to our well-sourced article, but does not footnote its assertions. There's no arguing that this response makes a very serious claim about a living person. Should it be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, or does the wikilink to our thoroughly-sourced article satisfy BLP policy to a degree sufficient for the transient, short-answer format of the Ref Desks? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember -- and staggeringly easy to forget -- that the Reference Desk guidelines are... guidelines. We don't have hard-and-fast rules or 100% objective litmus tests for what is and isn't appropriate to post. It has always been thus, and in fact it's not a bug that we don't have 100% objective litmus tests: it's a feature.
No one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk. Most of the time, the thing to do when you see something posted which you find inappropriate is: politely comment on it. Don't delete it; don't call the poster an idiot or a vandal or a troll; just say: "I think that was inappropriate."
What happens next is just as important, or more significantly, what doesn't happen next. The poster of the arguably-inappropriate material can issue a polite apology, or not. But there's no need for the poster to get all defensive about it, and we certainly don't need to get into a heated argument or a remove-it/no,revert-it/no,remove-it-again edit war. Remember: no one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk.
In particular, criticisms of the appropriateness of RD posts are not and should not be turned into polarized, dichotomized, slippery-slope, all-or-nothing hyperboles. If I suggest that something you said was inappropriate, it does not mean that no one can say anything remotely like that ever again. If you disagree that what you posted was inappropriate, that does not mean that the whole enterprise is going to devolve into a degenerate cesspool. But over time, the net result of a dozen or a hundred polite requests (some honored and some disagreed with) will be, on average, that we hover around, but stay mostly on the right side of, the impossible-to-define line of appropriateness. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what we want to do. — Steve Summit ( talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at BLPN. Corvus cornix talk 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Umm, 69.221.252.179, see Kevin Trudeau." would be a fine RD response and wouldn't have ignited this wall of prose but WTF, bits are cheap now (aren't they?). -- hydnjo talk 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue seems to be rather complicated to me. Generally per WP:BLP we should not discuss our personal opinions of people on wikipedia at all, not even on talk pages where it's off topic anyway. It's true we do sometimes turn a blind eye, particularly with stuff like 'Bush is an idiot' but people are perfectly entilted to and do remove comments from talk pages (and definitely articles) about a living person all the time. In my opinion, the RD is not exempt even though it's perhaps not OT. In otherwords IMHO it's okay person X has been convinced of multiple crimes including making false claims if that's sourced e.g. from the article. However in as much as possible people should avoid giving personal opinions of someone. Let's assume our readers are not dumb and able to come to their own conclusions... If you do want to give opinions I would suggest you take NPA to heed which while not technically applicable gives some helpful hints. It's not so bad to say 'I believe most or all of the stuff person X sells is junk' since you are discuss stuff rather then a person directly. You aren't prescribing any motives to him (he might really believe in the stuff he says about the stuff he says or perhaps he has been conned by someone else into thinking the stuff he sells does what he says) Nil Einne ( talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As a former regular here, may I extend my condolences to you all that the RDs seem to be undergoing one of their periodic bouts of angst and anguish. For those of you who've not been here that long, you may be comforted by the knowledge that these things are cyclical and almost predictable. In fact, that prompts me to ask a question at the Science Ref Desk. Meanwhile, I refer you all to WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY, which, if I recall, was originally inspired by Ref Desk angst. With love to all who frequent these pages in the hopes of helping others, even if you don't always agree with each other, and especially if you remember lil ol me... -- Dweller ( talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Crisis, what crisis? No angst, no anguish, no stress, and no arguments for the sake of arguments! I am more than happy with things as they are and can well do without the 'former glory', thank you very much. Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kainaw, when I deleted that question about exercise and illness, I was going by this guideline. But you responded, "If you want it deleted, you must discuss it on the talk page." Can you point me to the relevant guideline or policy that says we need to discuss on the talk page before deleting medical questions? It seems to me like we might need to revise the guideline I cited to reflect this. -- Allen ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So... Physics Magazine Guy. We've pretty well established that he's really Homework Copy Guy, and in any event, it appears that he posts without ever returning anyway (and that's just this month's already-archived examples). Is it time to just start deleting these walls of text that we've basically resolved not to answer? — Lomn 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a copy of a final response I gave in a discussion on the Humanities Desk (Image Highly Disturbing, 13 February) concerning the removal of images from several Wikipedia articles. This, I consider, to be a new and disturbing departure in forms of censorship. Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Which part do you find a new departure? This is by no means the first edit war we've seen over image inclusion. The only interesting feature I discern is that it was discussed for a few lines on an RD before someone got around a deletion which, like you, I deplore. --
Tagishsimon
(talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed this question. It appears to me that this is clearly asking Warfarin will interfere with the OP's unnamed heart condition. We cannot and, in my opinion, should not answer this question. -- kainaw ™ 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Diff. See 71.175.125.54 contribs -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The responses to this question have evolved along predictable lines to become a bunch of sniping crap. Should something be done before it turns into a full-blown flame war? -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not we have the same question on the science desk. We could nuke them? That would be in the spirit of the question. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We can and do remove discussions when they stray off topic or start to sound like a flame war. We discuss here first, then we remove if that's what people agree. We haven't done so recently because we haven't needed to. 130.88.140.115 ( talk) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
After five years, I've finished writing my first novel, a seventeenth century space opera. I could never have done it without Wikipedia, and especially the Reference Desks. I mainly haunt the Science, Humanities and Language desks, where I've been continually astonished by how far people are willing to go to help a stranger. If the book is published, it will include an acknowledgements page, where I'll express my gratitude, and also list a few of you by name - Sluzzelin, Clio the Muse, Lambiam, EricR, NunhUh, and Hydnjo spring to mind - but I'm worried that I might be missing someone - they're strange names that don't commend themselves to the memory - so this is your chance to remind me who you are ... And also, to those I've listed above, is it ok if I mention you, and have I got your names right?
Thanks yet again.
Adambrowne666 ( talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, hi Rockpocket - yes, you're in there too - and Corvus Cornix... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrowne666 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here? Why is no one complaining? :) p.s. if you've been here five years there is no doubt StuRat helped you out. Speaking of which, welcome back StuRat, I saw he asked a question on the science desk. David D. (Talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, David - StuRat, of course. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Richard - but then again I've long had a problem with going off prematurely - we'll wait and see. Not sure what to do about your request, Clio/Anastasia - can we retire to a quieter corner of the internet to talk about it further? Adambrowne666 ( talk) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who's noticed that his space opera is set in the 17th century? Galileo was being put on trial for heresy for defending the heliocentric theory.. not exactly a spaceflight level of technology :D\=< ( talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Jack - you were one of the helpers too, weren't you? Yes, writing's a murderous art. I've sent mine to an agent who works for a friend of mine, and also an editor at Tor books who likes my stuff. You should check out the Donald Maas agency website - they put up a page listing 'What we're looking for this month' - in February, one of the things they wanted was a literary historical science fantasy, so I couldn't pass that up. -- Froth, you're right - but the thing with fantastic fiction is that it always has to be set somewhere Other. Used to be in flying castles across the sea, then it was among the steaming jungles of Venus and the canals of Mars, then it was among the stars. Each time, when we discovered that the lands across the sea are as mundane as our own, that Venus is a rock and so is Mars, we kept setting our tales further away, in places that were still mysterious - romance needs mystery. And now we're in the future, and it's as mundane as everywhere else - the solution is to go into the past, which will always be Other. That's how steampunk came about, I reckon. The conceit with mine is that it was written by someone extrapolating on the science of the time, just as a sf writer does in 2008... Adambrowne666 ( talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wm Gibson says those who think sf is about the future are fooling themselves. My style of sf, set in the past, is more about culture and literature and the history of science than science itself, and so there's no chance of fooling yourself as you read it that this is what the future holds. Still, you have a point, Froth - the genre can have a role in popularising and extrapolating the science that's happening right now, and even influence the direction science takes, and I'm not delivering on that part of the bargain, so some sf readers won't get into it at all, which is perfectly fair enough. Adambrowne666 ( talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This diff removed from RD/S. Claims of "I don't want a diagnosis" notwithstanding, the OP is asking for a medical second opinion. If somebody wants to run down the list of possible skin bumps, I've got no issue, but I think the question as stated is fundamentally flawed. — Lomn 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll refrain from offering an opinion on the motive for this. But after MrRedact did the inevitable [8], Nricardo decided to answer the question anyway (despite the fact it was no longer there) with a confident, but unsourced opinion on what is or is not legal. [9]
We all know the different arguments arguments about this, God knows we have heard them often enough and I have a nagging feeling we are going to be hearing them again in the near future, but simply ignoring the fact that a question has been removed and offering an answer for anyway results in a non sequitur (and not a funny one). I therefore removed the entire section, since a answer without a question is about as useful as a surfboard with handlebars. Please folks, if you have an issue with a removal such as this, politely question it in the correct forum (i.e here) just don't ignore it and offer your answer anyway. Rockpocke t 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An anon user, whose IPs start 85, has been answering questions on the misc. desk by putting a link to the forum anontalk and no other attempt at answering. This seems like quite obvious spam to me, but they have been putting them back when they have been removed, even calling it 'reverting vandalism' in the edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=194172087&oldid=194171014. I'd post a message to their talk page asking them to stop, but it looks like a dynamic IP. So I shall put this here instead. Skittle ( talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say how much I'm enjoying myself at the Desks again. Today, I was inspired by a thread at the Humanities Desk to write Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded to this question that "unless Gravel specifically announced his reasons for remaining in the race, it would be speculation for us to say why." I was not aware that the reference desk is exempted from WP:NOR. Is that indeed the case? In my understanding, the function of our reference desk is primarily to give reference to factual information, such as that contained in our articles. Or at least published speculation.
This seemed to me a textbook example of soliciting a debate. I was accused of "polluting the responses" for pointing this out. Dforest ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, Dforest, it's very difficult to stop this kind of thing. It's best just to ignore 'invitations to debate' and speculations about speculation. I always do! Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and opinions. While you all have some good ideas, I particularly identify with Lambiam's comments. When I posted my initial response to the question, I first thought about responding with the plausible reasons Gravel would still be running. But I realized that would amount to speculation. I considered there may be some published opinion on the issue, but it would be difficult to cite while maintaining a neutral point of view. So I thought it would be in our best interest to stick to factual information about the issue, and advise the asker why we generally avoid speculation on these issues. I think one of the best points about our reference desk is that we have these guidelines to avoid original research and starting debates. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other services like Yahoo Answers, where people routinely do, as Lambiam was lamenting, respond with opinions or guesses as if they were established facts. Dforest ( talk) 11:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And awaited for. So you guys can be a complete reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseVisitTheAppropriatePagesRegardingSaidTopic ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to link a Wikipedia article on the 2007-2008 Kenyan crisis (it's there; believe me!) into an answer I gave on the Humanities Desk to a question about the contemporary effects of nineteenth century imperialism, but for some reason I cannot get it the blasted thing go blue! Am I doing something wrong? Clio the Muse ( talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There’s another Clio thread on the Humanities desk. (At least this one isn’t asking for her hand in marriage!) You know Clio, I believe your user page my soon be one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia. :) If only we could check. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No vandals, though; well, not too many. I must be doing something wrong! Clio the Muse ( talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Noetica ( contribs) has taken in recent times (or I have recently noticed) to changing question titles to what she/he considers to be more meaningful. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the changes do appear to be more meaningful. On the other hand, I pity the poor user searching for answers to his question, using the original title as they search key. any thoughts? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Misc Desk: -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The humor is appreciated, but why is it when someone reports spotting a UFO, they're ridiculed ? I have read the Robertson Panel article, and it says that to "reduce" intrest in UFOs, a debunking program is to be initiated. Debunk does mean ridicule, and that is what has been going on here. I have also read some of the discussion pages on UFO and what not and they indicate that IF there is alien contact, all fucking hell will break loose as the people revolt against all authority. Some will do so for religious reasons, some, for vengeance.
When someone wishes to report a UFO, they should go to the UFO article, UFO related article, pick a website hosted by a organization that will investigate the incident, incl. the person making the claim, all without someone ridiculing them. (Alien contact can happen right now or 100,000 years from now.) This should cut down on the ridicule, if not eliminate it.
Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED.
By the way, Wikipedia is one hell of a site. Keep up the good work. 65.173.104.52 ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been BOLD and changed the Entertainment desk's blurb on WP:RD to include sports. Now this important topic doesn't have to be relegated to the misc. desk, and I can give the Tim Cahills of the world the same level of attention I have always given the Paris Hiltons. -- Sean 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that sports should go in Miscellaneous. Entertainment to me implies music, movies, TV comedies and dramas, and the like. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(<--- outdent) Ok, I normally don't do this, but as we are discussing semantics, definitions of entertainment include
The first dictionary definition I found included:
The word "sport" is derived from the French word for leisure, and dictionary definitions of sport also emphasize the aspect of diversion, for example:
I have no strong feelings on whether to include sports as a sub-category of entertainment, but in the case of reference desks, I see the advantages per LarryMac, and I think both spectator sports and individual sport activities are closely connected to entertainment. I do, in fact, believe there is a healthy overlap of people who are interested in popular culture and people who are interested in sports. Should we rename the desk "diversion"? --- Sluzzelin talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just pulled the last two Tim Cahill threads, because it was obvious that it was (apparently two different people) just getting their jollies. Tim Cahill(7) was an anon asking "Has Tim Cahill ever been arrested for doing anything illegal in a mask? ;) ", while Tim Cahill(8) was a smartass asking "Who the f... is Tim Cahill?".
Enough already. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
...And I've now blocked T Cahill ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious troll. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the real Tim Cahill ever reads this stuff about him. He's probably too busy making mega-bucks to have time for Wikipedia. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per guidelines, diff here. (How do I do a diff?) -- Milkbreath ( talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We've got Dodgson here! Anyone happen to notice that my awesome header inexplicably works again? No more need to use Lambiam's flat-ish hack. Not that anyone cares or that anyone would even notice (unless Lambiam made some little formatting tweaks that I didn't notice, in which case please do tell) (or unless you use the WP:RD/TOOLS script I wrote a while back to put a nav bar at the bottom of the desk pages-- the nice box hightlights work now) but I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that it was the server weirding out, not my code >:| :D\=< ( talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Question removed [11] per Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. (EhJJ) TALK 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
in section
add
search Wikipedia using Google
Alanthehat (
talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(also changed the color a bit on the left column) :D\=< ( talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with this? Who had the authority to WP:CSD#G7 it? That subpage was a mile long and most of it was written by me-- I definitely didn't request deletion. :D\=< ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it was moved to User:Vector Potential/Wikipedia:Reference desk/style change Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made a template by copying and modifying {{subst:
RD removal}}. That original template is mentioned in
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice as the one to put on the offended editor's talk page, but the text of it had nothing to do with medical advice, or any advice, for that matter:
"...Please remember that Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, original research should be avoided and that the Reference Desk is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum....".
The new text reads:
"...Please remember the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations...."
I would like to put the new template, {{subst:
RD medremoval}}, in the guidelines section mentioned above in place of the RD removal template. What say ye? --
Milkbreath (
talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe such questions are actually real/serious, and have said so as politely (in my terms) as I could.
If true I think that the OP is asking for what amounts to legal advice - He's effectively asking us to act as a health and safety regulations advisor. And so I told him this.
Thought I should mention it here. 87.102.83.204 ( talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A while back, I made WP:HUM as a shortcut to the humanities desk. How to make it appear on top in the header? User:Krator ( t c) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You can hide the entire header by adding the following line to your monobook.css:
#rdheader { display:none; }
Personally I use bookmarks and my WP:RD/TOOLS to navigate the desks so it's a waste of space. Whatever, it's your option. :D\=< ( talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I found that another traced the IP of the question asker - and then commented upon it.
Personally I found this not bad but I can't condone it either.
Would anyone like to give some guidance on this matter, I don't expect that we should behave as if it is some sort of free for all with no boundarys regarding personal information. 87.102.21.171 ( talk) 11:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just found that the IP address of the person who asked the original question is located in San Francisco, California. If this person, by chance, attends the San Francisco Public Schools, then he or she experiences life as a member of a minority group, since whites ...
Hi folks. I need some opinions. I refer you to the thread " Goatse - how does he do that with his butt?" on the Science desk. (I can't link it, as it has a link in the header, sorry). I had no problem with the question, and I even contributed a comment:
A bit of light-hearted banter followed, and then came this:
My first impulse was to ask the poster not to make assumptions, or ask questions, in open forum about the private sexual behaviour of other editors who are known to be gay - or straight for that matter – no matter whether the question was asked in all seriousness, or just as part of a joke.
My second impulse was just to remove the offending post. But then I had a re-think. Maybe I almost unintentionally invited the question when I referred to receptive anal intercourse as "normal for some". Coming from a gay man, I suppose this could easily have been interpreted as meaning "it’s normal for me". But it wasn't meant to refer to me personally at all; I would never talk about my sexual practices (whatever they are) in open forum, or almost anywhere else for that matter. I was merely making a distinction between penetrative anal intercourse - which I think of as involving a penis, and which for many people is considered "normal" - and fisting, which to many, including me, is "grotesque"; and saying that even with the "normal" activity, there's a risk of becoming incontinent with long-term practice, let alone the "grotesque" activity. I was trying to be as clear as possible, because it occurred to me that the term "penetrative anal intercourse" could possibly be taken to include fisting, so I made a ham-fisted (pun) attempt at disambiguation. But on reflection, I think the usual intepretation is the one involving a penis, so the distinction was implicit and didn't need any explanation.
If I had my life over again, I'd have written: "Men who engage long-term in receptive anal intercourse (let alone activities such as fisting) often end up with ..." - but we can't re-write history; and there's no point in striking out the words I would now rather not have written, as it would make a nonsense of the subsequent dialogue (? polylogue).
I’m still left with whether, and if so, how, to respond to the anon’s comment. I don’t want to just leave it hanging – or maybe I should. I don’t want to compound the problem by misinterpreting what was intended to be a humorous aside. Had I been straight, would this question have been asked? Maybe it would have anyway. Maybe he doesn't even know or care what my sexual preference is. Maybe I’m just being a little touchy (I’ve not been sleeping well lately). Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I really can't answer any of these questions without asking him, but I just don't want to get into such a discussion in open forum, and certainly not privately with an unregistered user. I feel quite, quite stuck. What to do?
And here I go assuming the user in question will never read this. Sorry about that, 79.76.144.62. You're more welcome than anybody to have your say. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For all the obvious reasons - such as winding up people. 87.102.124.155 ( talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)