Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 15

message: Just a couple of things to look out for to ensure that the archiving goes through with smoothly. There are a couple things that will confuse the bot at the moment, but they're easy to prevent if we're paying attention.
# Make sure every question has a proper title.
#: Do not allow non-titled text to sneak in below the date header. If somebody adds a question without a title tag, give it one. Not doing so will currently make the archives pretty messy.
# Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. = November 13 =, just to be on the safe side.
# Do not change the number of days transcluded, or move around the links to the transcluded pages. If you want to suggest an extension or shortening of the transclusion time, talk to Martin so that the bot doesn't get confused again.
# Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
# Add  tags or codify HTML/scripts in article titles to keep the archive indexes from screwing up. Normal Wikilinks are OK.
If a couple people keep an eye out for these things there should be no problems :  )!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a date with no questions (only very seldom on the /Math desk)?  I've been adding a comment just in case.  --hydnjo talk 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... should be OK; the bot will probably just create a transcluded page with only the date header, though the index might screw up. It might be best to play it safe until we can ask Martin and make sure, but you can always just let it happen and see if it screws up or not; the bot isn't going to crash or anything, at the very worst it will just screw up the archives for that day, which won't be a big deal if there are none!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - sorry for my inactivity :) I think I've found the reason for that problem a few days ago, though freshgavin's points above are all still very important.  The bot will accept =November 13= and = November 13 = - nothing else!  The wrong date header, or the wrong number of transcluded pages will cause the bot to fail to archive anything that it hasn't already done - this is some behavoir that I'll look into improving, so it only fails on the bad desk.  For the problem with no questions - I'm happy to report that there isn't one!  The bot just takes all the text from the start of one date header to the start of the next, so the amount of text there makes no difference to it (thankfully ;)). Thanks - Martinp23 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RefDeskBot Archives: Caution 

message: If I look up something in the archived responses and find an erroneous response, or feel that an additional response would clarify or improve the quality, is it possible and or allowed to add something? Edison 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I add to them all the time.  Beware that it's not as likely that anybody will see the post, however.  Therefore, you might want to post to the user page of the person to whom you are responding, in addition. StuRat 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had seen editors scold questioners to the effect that such and such a question had already been answered, but did not see how to search in the archives, then found that if site:en.wikipedia.org "reference desk" was added to Google search string it would turn up those archived Q and A's. As soon as I looked up several topics of interest, I found a veritable 'Child's Garden of Misinformation,'  but wasn't sure about putting in my own thoughts. Edison 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing archived responses

message: Time for another talk page archive by the looks of it--71.247.105.54 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Note''': This page is 257 kilobytes long 

message: To allow any one person to decide what "might possibly be offensive to some potential reader somewhere" and allow to them to remove it (except in clear cases of WP:BITE, WP:CIVILITY etc) is in my opinion the start of individual CENSORSHIP. This would be the end of WP  IMO 8-(.--Light current 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes community pressure can be achieved by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT.  --hydnjo talk 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT.  --hydnjo talk 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats DFTT? Nothing under D in link! Also what happens if two or more people are being silly with each other at the same time? 8-)--Light current 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, silliness abounds. I'll start the well, you know, the ignoring for now just to see what happens.  --hydnjo talk 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK I dont mind! And I wont hold it against you! Not that I admit being a t**** or a disruptor. 8-))--Light current 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DFTT - Don't feed the trolls. --Salix alba (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes thanks I did find it 8-)--Light current 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Censorship is a red herring here.  You have no free speech rights on Wikipedia, except insofar as they serve the goals of the wiki. -- SCZenz 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You have no free speech rights here?" Be prepared to be assimilated into the Wiki. Resistance is futile. Edison 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dont like what you have written, so Im going to delete it 

message: Neither am I unless it violates existing policy OR I can get someone else to agree rthat its not acceptable! 8-)--Light current 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I dont like what you have written, but I'm not going to delete it

message: It seems we have a new censor on board who thinks he can delete anything he wants! I dont think he can! 8-(--Light current 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just silly. Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT.  --hydnjo talk 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? My statement is silly or the action of censorship is silly? 8-)--Light current 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Light current may be referring to this - the deletion of a serious, but possibly misguided, question and an appropriate response. Nothing to do with seagulls. Gandalf61 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that true Lc?  I assumed perhaps wrongly that you were bringing up the seagull dispute in this section.--hydnjo talk 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well that one of 'em! 8-(. Hes not actually asking for advice just info on what it might have been.--Light current 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Diagnoses expose Wikipedia to legal liability - review Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer for why we may not diagnose a condition you say you have had or do have. JBKramer 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Note that I followed up the deletion of that question and repsonse with a message to that users talk page, which he recieved, saying that we don't give medical diagnoses, because we don't, ever. This, like deleting gull questions, is not up for debate - but this one is not up for debate for obvious legal reasons. JBKramer 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who dont debate usually get steamrollered here 8-)--Light current 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a debate because it's already a decided question. Got a problem with the gulls? Get a consensus of users (not reference desk hangerouters) that I'm wrong to delete it, or get me blocked for deleting them, and I'll stop. If you try to solicit opinion RE the gulls, I might present my case there. Got a problem with the medical opinions? Get the Foundation, Arbcom or Jimbo to stop me, because nothing else will. JBKramer 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why I placed that information on the experienced users talk page after deleting the question. JBKramer 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need to remove inappropriate questions of this sort; it's better, as StuRat says, to answer them appropriately.  In this case, that means saying "see a doctor" and giving no speculation.  If there were speculation, I would strongly support removing it. -- SCZenz 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--Light current 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Leaving it in a public place invites speculation. Disapearing it removes the impetitus for someone who dosen't know not to speculate to do so. JBKramer 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just chill right down Billy, its not that important! 8-)--Light current 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JBKramer looks chilled to me. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I said chill. Dont become ice cold! 8-)--Light current 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  (Edit conflict) I think we should be able to expect question-answerers to follow the rules.  If the questioner were a new user, and in particular were anonymous, leaving the question up would be the best thing to do.  Since it was an experienced user, though, your action seems sensible enough to me. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral censorship 

message: The size of this talk page was really getting out of control--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just removed 140 kilobytes worth of discussion page to [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 14|Archive 14]] 

message: The sections at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Arranged marriage and Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous#Arranged Marriage got a bit too chatty rather than factual in their responses, as the questioner himself noted.  If a question appears to be clear trolling, it can be removed or ignored; if it's possible trolling, feel free to ignore it.  But in neither case should the question be used as an excuse to have fun with the questioner. -- SCZenz 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SCZenz. If the questioner is serious then let's not screw around with him, please give a serious answer or just move along. If on the other hand you feel that it is a trollish question then I suggest that also you just move along; please don't feed the trolls.  --hydnjo talk 00:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but: If you believe its serious and give an answer, but it turns out to be a troll, then you have fed the troll! Game over. 9-)--Light current 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but at least we're trying (aren't we?).  --hydnjo talk 04:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're better off feeding it than becoming one.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If those are the only choices then, for sure!  But can't we avoid both? --hydnjo talk 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Meaning??--Light current 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: LC: "Do not feed the trolls" definitely stands below the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which states that we should "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary."  If there's no clear evidence that someone's a troll, and you help them, and it turns out they were a troll, you still did the right thing. -- SCZenz 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pointing out the gaping hole in the DNFTT approach! BTW I noticed that there hase been a lot of 'trumping' going on lately. Ie certain opinions trump other opinions 8-( --Light current 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it a gaping hole, but I certainly agree that DNFTT must be applied with discretion.  See Wikipedia:What is a troll#Bad faith, which says (among other things) basically what I said earlier. -- SCZenz 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Devil's advocate always a troll?--Light current 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arranged marriage questions 

message: Has anyone else noticed but all the QAs for November 18 seem to have been excised.  I'm not quite sure what to do about this, as I assume any reversion would delete all that has been added since?  Clio the Muse 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-oh. We've got problems. Give me a minute to find where it starts.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot probably disconnected half-way through its update. Computing and Mathematics were correctly archived, but Humanities cut off in the middle (the 18th was removed from the current page, but wasn't properly transcluded). I'll see what I can do manually for now.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, all of the questions have been transcluded and are now back on the desk. Thanks for the heads up. Now let's see what we can do about the other desks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone might also want to look into the date headers for the 20th--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I just checked them and they were all done correctly so thanks to whoever did that. 11 and a half hours until the 21st so let's hope the bot's back by then.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Day 

message: I remember seing a discussion on this page about whether we should keep or remove the funny (sarcastic ?) answers. Can someone tell me what the outcome was ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No outcome. Eight archives of discussion.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed there was no consensus, though of course we all agree that funny/sarcastic isn't a bad thing.  Nevertheless, I do plan to remove comments that are excessively far off-topic or unnecessarily insulting to new users. -- SCZenz 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and because I dont remember you being elected as sole arbiter of good taste, I will revert it if I see fit ! 8-(--Light current 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there are those answers that are just funny, and those which are funny, but also answer the question.  And some responses are so obviously an attempt at humor, it would be silly to mark them as silly. StuRat 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I always indicate my seriousness 8-|--Light current 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Jack Dee--Light current 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that such a symbol should be added when the answer can be taken two ways. StuRat 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I have my own  (brilliant) system! See User talk:Light current--Light current 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh sure Wikicheng, then of course we must have the "smiley police" and then of course the inevitable "rv" and then of course the "smiley police review committee" and...  --hydnjo talk 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need rules and procedures, we need common sense. -- SCZenz 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: THe critcism of poking fun at the questioner is a fair one and that should never be tolerated. But Im not really aware of this happening much, if at all, now. If the question has been answered, then as in a real library, the librarialns can have a laugh at the subject (not the customer) I really dont see anything wrong in that. Of course I expect that some will say that we must be deadly serious all the time. Watch the space just below here for instance.--Light current 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I asked the RLRDL a questin, she answered it, and then she and the other librarians started trying to top one another with inside jokes about my question, even if they were not laughing at me specifically, I would be offended. It would be gross discourtesy. Edison 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny answers 

message: I have a question about a film. Should it be asked here or on the humanities section?
--Meno25 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humanities would probably be best, and post to the project page, not the talk page of that section. Good luck! Anchoress 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about a film 

message: Moved from the main reference desk and, partly, from THB's talk page.  This is in regard to the question on the humanities desk about unjust laws (specifically, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Modern_day_unjust_laws,_institutions,_or_corporations_in_the_United_States?)
:Hey everyone, can we try to keep our answers factual, please?  Something like "many people consider the Patriot Act to be unjust, because they think it violates such-and-such fundamental rights" or whatever, would be better than THB's comment above.  Reference desk, not discussion board.  -- SCZenz 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question specifically asked about "unjust" laws.  That requires opinion. -THB 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it did not ask about unjust laws. It asked which laws are "considered unjust"... that could have been answered factually. Furthermore, even if a questions asks for opinions, it should be answered factually because that is the point of the reference desk. Please do not continue to use it as a discussion forum; the distinction between facts and opinions is very important. -- SCZenz 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:THB" & moved here by THB because it was a response to a comment here. -THB 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by that exactly? 8-)--Light current 15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  keeping the reference desk factual 

message: I removed the section on "Tarka the otter" from the Humanities reference desk.  It seemed to be a clear-cut case of a question calling for opinions, which was in fact not possible to answer factually, and it was asked by a user familiar with the reference desk and its proper purpose.  The responses were likewise all discussion, which is again not what the reference desk is for.  If I missed something, and someone can argue that this discussion involved actual facts, I will apologize for my error. -- SCZenz 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCZenz - there are other recent RD questions that call for opinions and cannot be answered with facts - for example "why are French women so much better-looking than English women" from Humanities RD Nov 25th. If you are going to take it on yourself to cleanse the RDs, I think you need to do it consistently. Gandalf61 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to do exactly that, and I've been trying to, but I had limited time over the holiday and I guess I missed that one.  (I'll go back and look now.) Bear in mind that I'm only one person, trying to do the right thing as time permits—as with everything on Wikipedia, if you think I'm a good thing you're welcome to help me. -- SCZenz 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed. I'll try to survey the entire ref desk over the course of the day... but in general, if you see a problematic section I missed, you can bring it to my attention—or better yet, take care of it yourself! -- SCZenz 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCZenz - I won't be helping you in your clean-up campaign, as I don't happen to agree with your approach. However, my point was that if you are going to start a clean-up patrol on the RDs then you need to do it regularly and consistently, otherwise it could appear that you are acting in an arbitrary fashion and not treating all RD contributions on an equal footing. If you do not have time to patrol regularly yoruself, perhaps you should think about organising a rota. Gandalf61 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes you are correct. It was question prompted by the mention of otters somwhere on RD. I wondered if anyone had anything positive to say about it, or whether others found it as boring as I did! Of course I could have phrased it as: What are the literary merits and demerits of the book 'tarka the otter'? Would that be removed? --Light current 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an ok question.  An even better question would be to ask for information on published criticism of the book. -- SCZenz 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and also, I think you should get agreement from somone else before removing stuff!--Light current 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SCZenz. The question is more suited to a chat site than a Reference Desk.  --hydnjo talk 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there's consensus among Wikipedians that certain questions are inappropriate for the reference desk; it seems inefficient to get committee approval every time I act on that consensus.  A better way, and the standard for Wikipedia, is to get consensus that I made a mistake afterwards; if people often agree that I screwed up, then I'll obviously change how I do things. -- SCZenz 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not suggesting committee approval. Im just suggesting that you get at least someone else to agree with you thet the (any) offending item should be removed. You may be surprised at who agrees! 8-)--Light current 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lc, Are you perhaps suggesting that you'd delete your own question if it were deemed to be inappropriate for the RD?  --hydnjo talk 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If two consenting editors agree, then it can be removed. If I was convinced by another editor that my post was not appropriate,  I would remove it myself. I just dont like having a sole arbiter. 8-( --Light current 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you don't.  However, in clear-cut cases it seems better to do the right thing promptly, and argue about it later if necessary; this is, after all, a wiki. -- SCZenz 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes one meaning of the word Wiki is 'quick'. But the other meaning is 'informal'--Light current 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why exactly is it so critical to remove it quickly that this trumps any concerns about fairness ?  Will the foundations of Wikipedia collapse if this question is left in for a few more hours ? StuRat 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say so. But it sounds like homework 8-|--Light current 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarka the otter section removed 

message: I do not know if the reference desk community handled Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#sick dreams correctly.  It seems to me that the question requested advice, and was responded to with personal opinions about what to do (including what was more or less medical advice) rather than facts.  Any thoughts on how we could have handled this better? -- SCZenz 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not strictly a medical question. But we could have treated it as one. Other homebrew recipies from peole who have solved this problem, I think are valid answers.--Light current 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not strictly a medical question, but borderline medical advice (e.g. to take specific chemicals to possibly help) was given.  The point is, everyone gave what they thought should be done, and nobody pointed to any references or studies on the issue.  Providing references is what we're about here, not providing advice. -- SCZenz 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are vitamins classed as chemicals or drugs? I think this is a marginal case that could be looked at either way--Light current 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of dreams is nothing but opinion, so no strictly factual answer could be given. StuRat 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you agree it should be removed?--Light current 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me ?  Heck no, I'm fine with opinions on the Ref Desk. StuRat 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why cannnot SCZenz CZenz?--Light current 23:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An advice question that I think might have been handled wrongly 

message: The following is copied from RD/S and is an example of what we should not be doing, being unhelpful:
:==Sticky notes==
:What is the adhesive on sticky notes? X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glue--Light current 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The link links to all the glues under the sun and as such the answer is helpful (but not necessarily complete). Also a quick and dirty answer is sometimes all a questioner needs and is better than no answer.--Light current 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the questioner knows that it is some form of "glue" as he has used the word adhesive in the question. Your response seems uncaring, flippant and unhelpful. --hydnjo talk 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem so to you. But thats your interpretation. Ask Mac what he feels.--Light current 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person asking the question isn't the only one reading the page.  We want the ref desk to appear welcoming to those with questions. -- SCZenz 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That just aint gonna happen. Some Q&A will always be misinterpreted by someone (Take Popping collar for instance). It appeared offensive to DirkVdM (hence his relpy I assume) but apparently was not intended to be.--Light current 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OH Jeez! Nos da!--Light current 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And good night to you as well.  --hydnjo talk 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unhelpful responses

message: (unindent)Question: is there a relationship with madness and the historical views of normality?
I am doing a course on Abnormal Psychology, and have started to do this particular assignment, and I need a clue as to what it is asking for, as Im not sure if I understand the question, and dont want to write the assignment to find its not what they wanted at all - can anyone give me a clue?? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kargus (talk • contribs) .[posted 14:59, 28 November 2006]
(several responses skipped)
 
:Or, you can take your assignment and your studies seriously, research on these works, read secondary materials to understand them better, and really learn rather than going for unsubstantiated rhetoric. Moonwalkerwiz 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the above response benefit the Reference Desk project and Wikipedia?Edison 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abnormal Psychology 

message: :First off, is this just about jokes or also about threads going off-topic (which is totally normal in theads all over the Internet) and 'bad topics' (examples below)? 
:Deletions night be appropriate in some situations, but there is no reason to limit that to admins. That would go against the nature of Wikipedia. But there would have to be rules that are clear and acceptable to everyone. And that is very tricky. I've come across quite a few questions that looked like trolling but turned out to be genuine questions that were badly formulated. A recent example is the one about which race was superior in the US in the 19th century, which turned out to be a question about how whites regarded the issue at the time. The most recent issue was a remark by me of how, being a Dutchman, I misinterpreted 'popping the collar' as 'pulling back the foreskin'. Which made me laugh, so I shared my mistake with the rest so trhey could also have a laugh. Which consequently got removed by someone who branded it a 'juvenile penis joke'. I can understand how it could have been misinterpreted that way, but that illustrates the problem. This resulted in a revert war and a block. But this is only a prelude. The ref desk could become a revert war zone.
:Most importantly, telling people not to have fun here (because that's what it comes down to) will scare a lot of useful editors off. And enforcing that by deleting their posts is just not on (at the very least everyone invloved should be notified, but that would at least require a bot, but even then there is the problem that not all are logged in). The only useful thing that I have heard on this is asking people to leave the jokes until after the question is answered. Or maybe wait for a day. But as anyone active on the ref desk knows that won't work either. Hold a joke until the next day, when it is no longer appropriate? 
:One thing I have thought of is marking jokes and off-topic and iffy questions and answers, so people can skip that if they wish. But that also has problems. It would on the one hand spoil the fun of jokes and on the other hand attract the jokers. Also newbies won't know about it, so it won't help them. DirkvdM 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirks response 

message: ::::I'd rather not jump to blocks for childish behaviour; I'd much rather see the really off-topic stuff quietly removed.  Mind you, I also think it's very silly for an individual to edit war to put back an off-topic and borderline off-colour remark that doesn't in any way address the question asked, and I agree that that sort of silliness is begging for an attention-getting block.  What can I say?  I just don't find Dirk's penis as funny as he does.  This isn't a chat room, if you can't be funny while you're being helpful, then save it for your blog.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about my penis now? This is getting worse by the day. :) DirkvdM 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten, I had thought it odd why Dirk was mentioned, and it wasn't until I saw his block log that this issue is much different from the scope of what I had in mind. I actually had something else entirely in mind to address, but to answer Zoe, I am did not disseminate this because I felt it would be unfair to preemptively qualify something that has not happened. I'm jumping ship - this does not feel right to follow through anymore. --HappyCamper 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah Happy, Ive respected you input over the last few months (years?). so I would be interested in which comments you would have issued blocks for. Im truly interested and have no bias toward you! 8-)--Light current 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say most of the questions do have answers somewhere in Wikipedia, the problem is finding them.  Wikipedia's search capabilities are rather pathetic, and new users don't know how to use Google to search Wikipedia.  Also, if they don't know the name of the thing they're looking for, they really do need human assassitance. StuRat 11:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: People who don't know how to look things up will be newbies and deletion will confuse them (apart from it being extremely rude). Best to just give the right link, as is now usually done. Also, sometimes provides a link and someone else then finds out that doesn't actually answer the question. If the first one removed it, the newbie would be left out in the cold and we wouldn't know about the gap in the encyclopedia. This is a very general problem here. As you can see in the 'racist trolling' thread I mentioned above, even a whole bunch of people can have the wrong idea about something, but allowing one person make the decision will lead to loads of mistakes. There has to be some concensus about deleting a thread and the thread itself is the best place to discuss it. DirkvdM 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who is to decide that then? If it becomes normal procedure for people to remove stuff according to their whim, then the ref desk will become an edit war zone. Some articles are and they don't see anywhere near the activity that the ref desks do. DirkvdM 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I suppose that most editors here are able to ascertain the nature of personal attacks, repeated stupid questions, and intentionally fake answers. I never said that people should "remove stuff according to their whim". (Radiant) 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that may be the result if it becomes normal behaviour to delete other people's comments. Like I said, that already happens on many articles that see a lot of activity. But no article has anywhere near the activity that the ref desk has and if there is no easy way to detect a deletion then people can get away with lots of stuff. I sometimes suspect that a post of mine is deleted (by someone who disagreed or whatever) and even then it's too much work to find that out. I wonder how many of my posts have been deleted because I get into quite a few heated discussions. The thought really pisses me off because I can't do much about it. Make it normal to delete stuff and that will get out of hand. The only solution would be to devise a way to make it easy for people to check what has been deleted and I don't see how that could be done. DirkvdM 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would call that a slippery slope fallacy. In the history, taking a diff between your last edit and the present one (that'd be the 'cur' button) makes it easy to see what, if anything, has been removed. (Radiant) 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much trouble. What's the problem- just let anything go in the way of responses, and delete inflammatory questions. Nothing too formal is expected of such a high traffic page so why stress out about it --⁪frothT C 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree! See my guideline proposals below--Light current 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TenOfAllTrades steps in 

message: I see no significant cause for concern that the ref desk is running inefficiently or isn't carrying out its purpose. One thing I want to get straight is that the RD is an open forum and we're not trying to build an encyclopedia here! It makes no sense to try to apply rules written for an encyclopedia project to a reference desk. And no admin should be able to just pick out which rules they like out of the bunch and say that those are applicable to the RD. Well here's a rule I like: don't be a dick. But you know the movers and shakers are doing a fine job of creating an incredibly confusing and intricate problem, and I for one welcome our new admin overlords! "Mock submission," indeed --⁪frothT C 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Froth's response 

message: (Note: I posted this on the Admin NoticeBoard)
I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.
Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).
Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.
Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.
--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree! See my guideline proposals below--Light current 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justanother's input 

message: Yes Ahem! Sorry! Am I f***** invisible/inaudible? I suggested guidelines weeks ago and everbody said we dont need em. The evidence now is that we do need em. Many people have now said we need 'em. So whats the score? If people think we need em lets continue the discussion I started. (If you dont mind)--Light current 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 14#Draft guidelines for the Reference desks (draft #1)? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thank you. How kind of you to find them for me 8-) Thanks--Light current 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light current - I think your proposed rules 1 and 3 are fine. Your rule 2 ("Respondents should keep all answers 'on topic'") is too subjective and open to interpretation for my taste. Is Dirk's "popping your collar" response 'on topic' or not ? Opinions differ. This is where we came in. Gandalf61 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're talking about setting rules/guidelines, whatever they may be called. But the above discussion is about deleting anything that violates such rules according to someone, which is a totally different ball game (and quite frankly pisses me off). DirkvdM 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly #2 is bound to be open to interpretation. Perhaps it should say:
Respondents should try to keep all answers 'on topic' if possible.
--Light current 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCs explosion! 

message: Some people commented that the RD is the first part of wikipedia that some newbies see.  This might explain a lot- newbies frequently don't understand what we do here.  If the first thing they saw was the RD, this is perfectly understandable.  
Wikipedia is not:
#a forum
#a how-to guide
#a place for our own opinons and experiences
Yet, from what I've seen, the reference desk is these things.  Why are we intentionally giving people such wrong ideas about the project?  If the reference desk were only for questions about Wikipedia (call it the "Help Desk" instead perhaps- whoops, we already have exactly that) these problems might go away.  Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, if anyone's not buying the "reference desk is harmful to newbies" argument, take a look at this.   Here's a newbie who's done nothing but post on the reference desks, and it seems clear from the contributions he's got no clue at all what Wikipedia is about.  He's using it as a chat forum, pure and simple.  Friday (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, that's evidence that newbies (user:Kjvenus the troll, in this case) are harmful to the Ref Desk, not the other way around.  Are you suggesting that we somehow made him into a troll ?  He would have been a valued contributor to Wikipedia if only we had stricter rules at the Ref Desk ?  I don't think so.  Now, if your delete-happy finger wants to delete his posts, then go right ahead (as long as nobody has yet responded).  StuRat 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the reference desks are merely an attractive nuisance.  The original point I thought I'd made above was that the RD as currently managed can easily give people the impression that Wikipedia is a forum.  This is not an impression we want people to get.  Friday (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The question of how to cook a fish seems pretty harmless- I don't see that offering personal opinions there hurts anything.  But, consider the recent "is Scientology a cult?" question- this is more sensitive.  A personal opinion posted there, which drew the attention of the wrong person, could easily end up as a news story about how "Wikipedia says Scientology is a cult."  This exposes the project to unwanted complications.  For this reason, I think we ought to discourage all personal opinions.  But I'm not going to try to go so far as to suggest that personal opinions at the RD are always harmful either- they just seem irrelevant to me, and I think it's safer to avoid them.  As for it being a forum, no, we don't want this.  People have tried to use other non-article pages as chat boards before, and this kind of irrelevant content is often removed.  We certainly don't want to encourage people to use any part of Wikipedia as a forum.  If someone posts a personal rant or opinion, not related to the article, on an article talk page, we sometimes remove this stuff.  Same goes here.  I'm not saying we have to be very strict about it, but we should encourage relevant questions and relevant responses.   Friday (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have to laugh at the Scientology example as that may have been a special troll just for me. Or not, it is really of no matter. But I think that we will do just fine if we police obvious excesses and offer quite a bit of latitude. --Justanother 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the reference desk harmful to newbies? 

message: (Copied from above discussion by StuRat 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misuse of it doesnt mean it has no redeeming value, it is a reference desk for looking for articles, where you dont know the name or lingo of what you are looking for. If you look in the ref desk history, back to the first few days of its usage, you'll see what its for. Philc TECI 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Im rather amused at Jacks 'nit picking anal robot' Is this a robotic anus that picks nits? And from where? THe mind boggles.--Light current 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, WP:SNOW. Reminds me somewhat of the excellent film title Gas! or It Became Necessary to Destroy the World in Order to Save It --Tagishsimon (talk)
*Wikipedia does not work through "motions" and voting on them in the first place. If there is a group of people who want to answer questions, they can do so. If another group of people think that first group is wasting their time, they are welcome to not participate in answering. (Radiant) 09:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL: Discontinue the Ref Desk entirely ?

message: He decided he didn't like the poll below, so he just deleted it.  This isn't allowed under talk desk rules, right ?  I said so on his talk page, but guess what, he deleted it there, as well.  The applicable rule is at WP:TPG:
"Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."
StuRat 10:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest both Radiant and StuRad settle down and do not allow themselves to be diverted from the task in hand: Discussing a new Main RD that is completely serious (and probably boring -but wth?) Also can I ask that no one edits or removes any others posts? THanks. --Light current 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Might this be an easrly form of what I was warning about, that if it is made policy that certain postst may be deleted, some people will misinterpret that and start deleting all sorts of other stuff? But LightCurrent is right, let's not clog up the issue with yet another off-topic discussion (should this thread be deleted then? :) ). DirkvdM 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That wasn't the result of the poll, but rather the result of Radiant trying to delete other people's comments.  That type of behavior on a talk page is almost always going to enrage people. StuRat 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, show diffs. Kim Bruning 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What ? StuRat 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You stated that Radiant of deleted other peoples' comments. Radiant has defended himself with diffs showing there was more going on. Please show the diffs for your side of the story, so that we can have an overview of what was done and why. Kim Bruning 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here are his deletions: , , .  And here is me putting back his text, which he added as part of his same deletion edits (so they had to be deleted and re-added to put them into a separate edit): . StuRat 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiant's behavior 

message: Instead of making a new desk to guage user reponse, why not just make a nice subpage to this talk page and ask in the RD headers for input from posters on whether they appreciate humor in responses. The opinion of questioners is of limited value as I pointed out above but this seems like a better idea than a whole new desk. A discussion with actual questioners would be of far greater value than just counting the number of people that use the new desk, and (if we do it the way that the mockup did) users are just as likely to participate in the discussion page as they are to participate in the new desk --⁪frothT C 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be simpler. Make a  template and point out its existence at the top of the pages. Not a bad idea. DirkvdM 11:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get your friends together and try the new design, or don't get your friends together and stay with the old one. One or the other. But don't keep beating around the bush. You are as much in control of wikipedia as everyone else. Make a decisision and apply it. Kim Bruning 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If nobody has any objections, I'll make it tonight and link it here, along with a mockup of a modified header. An admin will have to do the actual update of course. --⁪frothT C 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not. I'm just being bold and making the change in a couple minutes --⁪frothT C 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual Poster Input

message: The whole "Serious RD" appears to be a WP:POINT violation. Keep one RD and apply WP existing policies to maintain the quality of answers. I hate the idea of anonymous answers provided by anyone in the world with access to a computer. How can it possibly improve the quality of the answers? How can the person posting a question form an opinion of the qualifications of the responder? Above there was a question copied to this talk page. Someone had a technical question about motors and generators. The questioner could easily check and see that both responders are (or at least claim to be) electrical engineers, and that they have contributed to numerous technical articles. With the proposal, the answer could be any IP person pranking the questioner. Bad idea. As is, I spend a fair amout of time searching the history file to identify anonymous editors, because that helps to out pranksters who are posting a whole series of dubious questions just to waste the time of those willing to answer serious questions. I do not see what is wrong with someone doing hard work to research and post a good answer getting credit for it, or with readily identifying pranksters. Edison 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "getting credit for it" part is important, especially as related to the entirely volunteer-run Wikipedia. Usually credit is given by the page history, but since nobody really reads the RD history except for the odd  I agree that the signatures are important. By the way, it's not really a POINT violation since it's the result of exhaustive discussion and anyway it's not disruptive. If anything (as pointed out earlier) it's a POV fork. And vandalism/falsehood is always a problem, and could easily be just as much of a problem with signed comments so that doesn't really apply. But what is a vandal magnet is "do not vandalize"! --⁪frothT C 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think answers should be signed.--Light current 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. StuRat 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I, for the reason Edison mentioned that one can assess contributers' usefulness from previous experience with them. DirkvdM 11:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymity is a Vandal magnet

message: Edison responded to this opinion, and call for discussion, correctly—by pointing out that Wikipedia is not to be used as a soap box.  There was no request for information, so there was no other way to answer.  But then other users followed up by arguing the point, resulting in the misuse of the ref desk as a discussion forum in violation with WP:NOT.  This should not have been done. -- SCZenz 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the existence of God can be considered a scientific theory is an entirely legitimate Ref Desk question, as are any questions on cases in which the scientific method can be employed.  As such, I answered the question, to the best of my ability.  It probably does belong on the Science desk, but that's a bit of a gray area. StuRat 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point; you gave one of the more constructive responses there.  The thread has now definitely declined into general discussion on the topic, however. -- SCZenz 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look bad at all to me.  The user got a good answer, and any side discussions (like "why people feel a need for a God") are relatively short, and after good answers were given.  I see no need to delete anything, chastise anyone, threaten blocks, or actually block anyone. StuRat 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't suggest any such thing.  I said that the ref desk was misused, and suggested that it should be done differently in the future. -- SCZenz 06:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned before, we tend to automatically find some question to answer in whatever was posted. I do not know why the OP put that there but I WP:AGF that he had a genuine question; i.e. what do you think of my argument. My feeling is if the posting can be reasonably refactored to a valid question then go ahead and answer it whether you refactor or not. In actual fact and all due respect to Edison (whom I respect), I see Edison's reply as a bite, altho GTubio is by no means a newbie. Actually, what do you think of my argument is pretty much exactly what he asked. I see it as a valid question. Unless he added that later?? --Justanother 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 07:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the user requests opinions, this is not the place for them; "what do you think of my argument?" is not a factual question, it's a request for opinion; but yes, this isn't the most egregious example, and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up.  However, the comment that Dirk made in the incident you refer to was both off-topic and inappropriate, and by no means a "small problem." -- SCZenz 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only takes the most minor reinterpretation to make it entirely appropriate: "Is this a logical argument ?".  To me, getting hung up on the precise wording is as silly as forcing every answer on Jeopardy! to be in the form of a question.  If we know what they mean, does it really matter if they didn't ask it quite correctly ?  As for Dirk's "popping the collar" comment, you still find that to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy, despite an Admin and many users telling you otherwise ?  I see we still have work to do with you. StuRat 12:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone who asks such a question should (and probably does) expect wild speculations and discussions going all over the place. Anyone who is not interrested can skip it (as I did). So who is left who could have a problem with this question? DirkvdM 12:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with responses to [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Proof_for_God's_inexistence]] 

message: I prefer the concept of a 'General' RD as the first point of contact for a questioner. This would be a strict desk , but in depth answers couls be dealt with on the existing specific desks. A bit like being invited into the back office for more in depth comments/help/advice! Comments?--Light current 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, ummm, half the questions aren't signed, but we can assume they'll use a "strict" tag.  Uh-uh, I just don't buy it.  Let me ask a question:  Have any of the people who actually post questions complained or made suggestions that indicate the need to change the Ref Desk significantly? -THB 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. But perhaps some of the critical users could point us toward some actual cases?--Light current 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received private email from a user who was made uncomfortable by an inappropriate comment; I don't know of that user had asked any questions, but I do know that this page has many readers beyond the question-askers. -- SCZenz 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Would you care to say in what way the user was made uncomfortable?--Light current 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that someone had volunteered information about their personal masturbation habits; that sounds like a fair reason to be uncomfortable to me. -- SCZenz 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm I dont remember that one, but presumably it was in response to a question in the same vein? Whether the response was appropriate, I cannot say. I just dont know if we should ban talking about our personal experiences when answering questions. THat could cut out a lot of useful info. 8-)--Light current 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But not any factual info from reliable sources.  I think, at least, that some extra discretion is called for when volunteering personal experiences. -- SCZenz 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah discretion! Some people think they have more than others!--Light current 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think maybe it was this one? Anchoress 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HMMM! Thank you for digging that one out. 8-)--Light current 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but in that case the sexual material did not contribute to answering the question... and yes, I know the question was LC's originally, it still had nothing to do with anything.  And frankly, I think that irrelevant remarks of a sexual nature are understandably more off-putting to new users and are therefore of more concern. -- SCZenz 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing sexual was mentioned in that reply. But maybe the remark could have been taken the wrong way and offended someone.--Light current 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to understand why some users expect that an offended user will necessarily know how to, and feel comfortable with, posting a concern on this arcane, cluttered talk page.  It's up to us to make a front-end Wikipedia page like this welcoming; we shouldn't just do whatever we want until someone complains.  In any case, the user I received the comment from apparently did get the fairly blunt reference, and apparently was unhappy about it. Community consensus is certainly against censorship of articles... but what I am saying here is that gratuitous sexual jokes are an aggrivating factor when judging the appropriateness of off-topic comments. -- SCZenz 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll agree with the last sentence, emphasizing the word "gratuitous" as key.  How did they even e-mail you?  I don't know how to e-mail other Wikipedia users. -THB 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user has their email enabled, you can go to their user page, and you'll find an "Email this user" link under toolbox on the left-hand bar.  If you did this from my page, it would lead you to Special:Emailuser/SCZenz. -- SCZenz 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see it, on the "skin" I chose it's at the bottom.  Have you found having your e-mail enabled to be abused? -THB 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCs idea (again)