Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 17

message: Another way to deal with off-topic ramblings and chat and questions is to guide the questioners and respondents back on track. This invariably causes less grievance than removing material. Selective insertion of new headers can also make rambling threads more orderly. Carcharoth 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  Would you be willing to write a section on "Dealing with off-topic conversations" ?  I think your suggestions will easily gain consensus, and thus make an excellent addition to the proposed Ref Desk Policy Page. StuRat 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to take part here for a few days before doing that. Thanks for the vote of confidence though! Carcharoth 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, and you're welcome. StuRat 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CIVIL comes into play here, and WP:AGF. -THB 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which way? Do you mean assume good faith with off-topic ramblings? Off-topic ramblings should start their own section, or subsection header. It is a common courtesy to the reader. If I come along later and add such section headers (making it clear that I added them), then that shouldn't be a problem. Only the most thin-skinned of people would think I was being incivil by helping in this way. And of course, being polite is a pre-resquisite. Not "get back on topic NOW you snivelling little twerps!!", but rather "hey, do you remember the original question, I wonder how this all relates to that, there are some interesting connections here...", and gently chivvying the topic back towards the centre (the question). The responses can certainly circle the question, but shouldn't go off at a tangent. That is disrespectful to the questioner, though it might be just as educational. Carcharoth 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the analogy of circles and tangents. Usually the postings do come back to the original Q, but the circle may have a rather larger diameter than required. In the early posts, therfore, it may appear as if we are going off on a tangent!--Light current 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm good point. Remember that those seemingly off topic responses often spark valuable discussions that would have never occured otherwise. The OPs thank us for those. --⁪frothT C 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec) There's nothing wrong with providing more information than was asked for. We're not  forcing it down their throats. I think it's actually a good thing. -THB 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the restoration of Sam Clark's remark. But the troll accusation seemed like a personal attack on a likely new contributor, so I moved it here rather than asking the poster to remove or rephrase it, which would clearly have been more desirable, but I think that WP:NPA justifies moving a troll accusation here immediately pending consensus of whether it is appropriate. How long would we have to leave a personal attack on the project page pending a response from the accuser before moving it here? 1 hour? 5 days? Do we want the original questioner to read it and then we pr the accuser remove it from the page only after the newbie has abandoned Wikipedia in disgust? Edison 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another way 

message: My instinctive answer is no, but with some exceptions (basically that some additions are OK, as long as you don't change the meaning):
*I feel it's good to edit a poor title, like "Question".  I like to change it to "Question (about the combustion temperature of ants)" so they can still find it if searching for the word "Question".  Also note a technical limitation, that having two sections with identical titles causes a problem.  Specifically, links "get confused" in this situation, and always go to the first section.  So, I frequently change two "Car question" titles to "Car question (engine)" and "Car question (transmission)", or, if they can't easily be distinguished, just "Car question" and "Car question 2". StuRat 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just learnt what causes that annoying thing when the text scrolls off the right-hand side of the page! I'm very happy now. And I've just corrected a question on the Science RD where that had happened! :-) Title changes are good, but leave it recognisable enough so the questioner can find it again. Adding links - a matter of style. If you do it that way, fine. Others almost certainly just type it out again. The minimal space/time saving is not worth codifying this as a rule. Carcharoth 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting we make a rule that it must be done that way, only that it can be done that way.  However, if the consensus is against this, then I'd be fine with retyping it all.  What I don't want, however, is to do something, assuming it's OK, only to be told it's forbidden.  Therefore, I'd like a clear rule on this. StuRat 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done these things, too, even changed an incorrect spelling here and there to get a link to work.  A librarian would correct the spelling on the dirty little scrap of paper with a misspelled "questin" on it for you.  The formatting is a necessary evil.  We also use the unsigned tag.  My view is that formatting is okay.  I don't reword the sentence.  I have added or adjusted the heading. -THB 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The standard etiquette on Wikipedia talk pages is that editing heading names is fine, and redoing things like spacing and indentation is fine, and even moving comments around is ok as long as it's an effort to preserve (or make clearer) the order of the discussion.  Adding links to peoples' comments or correcting their spelling is generally quite frowned upon.  One particular note in the context of the ref desk: I think it's very confusing to everyone when people reply to a question by wikilinking the original question—first because it doesn't draw the attention of the questioner to the links in the same way retyping them would, and second because it misleads other question-answerers into thinking that the user had already looked at the Wikipedia article when they asked. -- SCZenz 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent point, SCZenz.  From now on I am not going to wikilink in the original question. -THB 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes good point. I try not to edit their question in any way except to correct those leading spaces which make the code box appear, and I also use . If there are applicable wiki links I put them in my own post --⁪frothT C 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also  which may be less likely to 'bite' new users, even if it is a bit bulky--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have preferred to be able to continue to wikilink in the original post, but I will respect the consensus and retype the links instead.  StuRat 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I too, used to link in the OP, but I can see it is not ideal for the reasins given above. Therefore I will retype any links instead.8-)--Light current 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May we edit the posts of others ? 

message: Is in this link:  Association of Reference Desk volunteers
I suggest you go there. and then fight on that talk page(which doesn't exist)
:That was actually referred to above under the heading "Lollipop Guild".  If you read the page, a lot of it is very offensive and condescending. -THB 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? i found none of it to be offensive, and very little to be condescending. where is this violent and condescending material u speak of?Xiaden 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks, we prefer to fight here. It's closer to our homes. Thanks anyway. --Justanother 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Really good answer to a lot of questions that have been asked around here... 

message: THe fundamental question we must ask ourselves is: 
Can the goals of WP be achieved without reference desks? 
If not, why not. The answer to the latter question will define their porpose!--Light current 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question, IMO, is "Should something that seeks to be formal entity (encyclopedia) have such an informal public side to it". That is the problem that people like SCZenz see, I think. It is a good question but as long as the RD in formatted as an open community rather than a fully moderated interface then I guess the answer is. "Sure why not, who say we have to be 'all formal, all the time'". --Justanother 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK now we have two questions-- I was hoping to avoid multiplication at this stage 8-)--Light current 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I just remind people of my suggestion for a formal interface with the public: A General desk that could lead to the more informal specialist desks.--Light current 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  If the RD did not help with the goals of Wikipedia, it would already have been removed.  Let's all do our parts to make it as helpful to the goals of Wikipedia as we can.  (And just to be clear- the goal is to produce a high quality encyclopedia using information verifiable from reliable sources. ) Friday (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals of WP 

message: Here is an informative summary of the duties and qualifications of a real life reference desk librarian: Library reference desk  Edison 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Wikipedia article. -THB 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep.  And, egads! I just noticed they completely failed to mention making juvenile sex jokes as part of the duties.  Bizarre.  Friday (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it also fail to mention megomaniacal admins viciously censoring everything they say? See, I too can make inappropriate comments by blowing things out of proportion --⁪frothT C 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Friday, we've already reached consensus that sex jokes are no longer allowed. StuRat 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sorry we havent! What about other types of offensive (to some) jokes?--Light current 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can also blow things out of proportion -- but lets not get side tracked! 8-)--Light current 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's time to move forward. -THB 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RLRDL

message: You have two cows: You leave them alone to go into the pasture chat room and argue incessently about the best way to care for cows, are cows harmful, whether you should even own a cow. You continue. The cows are left to manage for themselves. They do just fine. --Justanother 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a load of bull! Why dont you just eat grass?--Light current 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just chew on it. Stop trying to milk a joke out of every comment. --Justanother 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I dont, udders may do so!--Light current 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please mooooooove on ? :-) StuRat 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light current's just trying to horn in on Justanother's story. -THB 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give you'all a tip - this cheesy behavior has got to stop. --Justanother 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are just a bunch of cud-ups. -THB 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I shall have to ruminate on the above comments. 8-)--Light current 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No whey, I can't stomach this discussion any further. :-) StuRat 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section of the page is off-topic and should be deleted. -THB 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that all of the above is an extremely low form of humor. It just shows what a load of cowboys you all are.--Light current 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, I just hope no-one plans to put us out to pasture (Pasteur?). --Justanother 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They just may if this topic doesn't germinate into something useful --⁪frothT C 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what Kine of humor is this?Edison 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would be off color humor. (weak I know, but how do you follow Kine?!) --⁪frothT C 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I still thank him for the "You have two cows" idea that I developed into a means of making a point and having some fun at the same time. Though I do think that User:Cjwright79 (the sockmaster) has an odd idea of how to best contribute to this project (see Griefer). --Justanother 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do wonder why anyone would want to grief other people -- I mean it can only do harm, yeah? Seems like nothing more than a pointless, vindictive waste of time and energy... Mathiemood 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IDK, maybe it is supposed to be some kind of "evolutionary pressure" thinking like "that which does not kill you only makes you stronger". I think we can do without "tooth and nail evolution" here. or at least I hope so. --Justanother 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, one of the assertions in Hagakure (a samurai text) is that it will not do to discriminate. Vis a vis, let the 'tooth-and-nail' evolution occur outside Wikipedia, and let's all play nicely inside Wikipedia. It is reclusive, exclusionist, and no doubt part of the reason why people come here to troll and grief in the first place. Just my 2 cents. Mathiemood 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is plenty "tooth and nail" here without entering in a random element of a "griefer". If we want that we might also want some "natural disasters" programmed in to the wiki, like a flood that floods all the pixels off random pics or an earthquake that "shakes up" the text in random articles. That will keep us all on our toes! --Justanother 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   With a bow to Theavatar3 

message: I've copied the items which seem to have consensus so far into a policy page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy.
*As we reach consensus on additional items, they can be added.
*I put a clone of the policy template (Template:Policy) there, with one change, this is an "unofficial policy", not official.  However, it's really ugly (just block text).  Can someone please prettify it ?
StuRat 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, StuRat. Your efforts are appreciated!!! --Justanother 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. StuRat 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy so it's in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article space (and updated StuRat's link, above).  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. StuRat 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a policy page ! 

message: I think many of us agree that the RD has more in common with a talk page than with an article.  I know I do.  Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Content_that_is_Unacceptable where there's a discussion of dealing with off-topic material.  Friday (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a look at a similiar issue, discussed on another page 

message: What I am willing to compromise on is basically anything where the consensus goes against what I would like to do.  So far, that has been not adding links or doing spell fixes on other people's questions, and not adding jokes before there is at least one serious response.  Things I'm not willing to compromise on are the total rejection of the process of consensus, with the assertion that anyone can unilaterally decide what the rules are for deletion, based on their own interpretations of general Wikipedia policy (which says pretty much whatever you want it to say).  Now, let me ask User:Friday and User:SCZenz, what are you willing to compromise on ? StuRat 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I'm going to remove only blatantly inappropriate questions.  See here where I did this.  I assume that particular removal was uncontroversial, since it stuck.  I'm also trying very hard to rant a hell of a lot less.  :) Friday (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was excellent judgement.  Frogs don't have toenails, anyway. -THB 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like this whole epic campaign should stop after those two comments from stu and friday.. that's it after all, isn't it? --⁪frothT C 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Willingness to compromise

message: okay, so this is probably not the first time this has come up, but I'll give it a go. Is there any way we can stress that people should DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK? Also, what is the generally accepted policy on answering obvious homework questions? I usually give a general answer and then a link to a page where they should start to research. I think the problem might be that people are not sure exactly where to start. Any thoughts? -<FONT FACE="Calibri">Laurənwhisper</FONT> 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, i just did more research into the topic and I found the template . Still, what is the best way to answer these questions? <FONT FACE="Calibri">Laurənwhisper</FONT> 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)What you're doing seems to be the way most people are handling it lately.  It's the safest way--I once told a 60+ year old woman to do her own homework--and it's nicer than using the template.  Probably they wouldn't ask if they already knew what to do.  It doesn't hurt to point them in the right direction. You can also tell them to come back when they have more specific questions arising from the research. -THB 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes that's exactly what I try to do --⁪frothT C 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  homework 

message: Everyone, please accept my apologies for my excessively fervent ranting and whatnot.  None of us should be here to fight, and I see that a lot of what I've done has fanned the flames rather than cooling things down.  Friday (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for my contributions to the confusion. -THB 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for not always assuming good faith, where you, and some other Admins, are concerned. StuRat 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Flame fanning is your job, and you fuelled pages of discussion. But I'm glad you feel the way you do --⁪frothT C 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it was a change, temporarily. I just wish people had dropped the campaign of harasssment against me.  Is this the normal way that newcomers to this page get treated?  Assuming bad faith is a good way to drive off contributors.  Friday (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: On the Humanities desk in response to the question "History" regarding slavery, Loomis 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to do two steps, you can just 'CTRL+C', which copies. Anchoress 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm a skeptic, and I don't actually believe it's in the buffer until I see some proof.  A cut and paste let's me "see it with my own eyes". StuRat 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and also, usually the 'back' button will just take you back to your editing screen. Anchoress 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, often, but not always. StuRat 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox's "fast history" cache makes it possible, but you may have exceeded your cache size, or you may have visited other pages before hitting back in your original tab --⁪frothT C 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I know exactly what you mean when I lock my room door and hear that slam without patting my pockets a few seconds before :) --⁪frothT C 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:NPA vios

message: Let's discuss "Questions which contain an opinion" first:
*I support allowing this type of question, so long as there is an actual question in there somewhere.  For example: "When was Bill Clinton, the worst President the US ever had, inaugurated ?".  While it would have been better without the opinion, I'd still answer the factual portion. StuRat 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, Gandalf, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you, so I've added that to the guidelines: Yes, but opinions should be identified as such, i.e., with "I think..." or "I believe...". StuRat 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We vote if we want to! 8-)--Light current 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can, sure.  I hope whoever wishes to "vote" or comment takes a look at the discussion below, and reflects on these questions in the context of existing practice and consensus.  I believe I've made a strong case for the notion that we already have established answers to these questions.  Friday (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the talk page guidelines, there's already a general consensus between Wikipedians on the place of opinion on talk pages. The guideline says in part, "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."  Similiar standards seem pretty reasonable here.  See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.  Some opinion isn't noticable harmful, but it should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note the existing consensus that Wikipedia is not a message board.  When we get too much into opinion, this is what the RD turns into.  So, we need to use judgment, and try to keep off-topic chatter to a minimum.  Friday (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also existing consensus that we should "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated."  This is from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer which is transcluded at the top of the individial RD pages. Friday (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can point to the discussion and consensus that led to the creation of that item, we don't really know if that was just what one person wrote or what the circumstances were. StuRat 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can tell you that I'm personally very confident that the points I made above reflect general consensus, but I'll understand if you don't just take my word for it.  If you don't buy it, go ahead and look- any of what you seek is there to see, in the relevant talk pages and histories.  At any rate, it's what we have, and if anyone disagrees and wishes to change it, go to the relevant talk pages and make your point.  Until then, existing consensus should be the basis for whatever we're deciding about the reference desk, right?  Friday (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If you claim there is an existing consensus, the burden of proof is on you. StuRat 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above- I pointed to several other agreed-upon pages that make my point.  If you disagree with those pages, that's your choice, but please don't just assert that existing guideline and policy pages don't reflect existing consensus.  I'm afraid I cannot say much more about this without pointlessly repeating past arguments, so I'll leave it at that.  Friday (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not, I am merely asserting, particularly for the last page, that you have not shown them to be formed based on consensus, so should not claim them to be. StuRat 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were created by the wiki process, which relies on consensus.  If you want more "proof", I'm really not sure what to tell you.  If you want more information, the histories are available to anyone who cares to look. Friday (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not reasonable for us to assume that the folks asking questions will be familiar with (or have any desire to follow) some set of rules we make.  Heck, it seems clear that many askers and answerers haven't even read Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer.  People ask whatever they ask.  If a question cannot be answered in any reasonably encyclopedic way, my plan is to tell the questioner this and ask if they care to ask a different question.  Friday (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so the first two are moot. As for the third, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "a little opinion isn't too harmful"- IMO opinion is often very useful to building a good answer. Now if there's just a response that's all an opinion or off-topic (like for example saying "why don't you stop making your peanuts so darned delicious! =)" in response to the guy asking about workers stealing his peanut harvest), of that I would say "it's not too harmful" but like I said of course in less extreme cases opinion can be very helpful to an OP, and give them a perspective they wouldn't have if answers were entirely encyclopedic --⁪frothT C 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item for consensus discussion: Opinion 

message: :According to the talk page guidelines, there's already a general consensus between Wikipedians on the place of opinion on talk pages. The guideline says in part, "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."  Similiar standards seem pretty reasonable here.  See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.  Some opinion isn't noticable harmful, but it should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note the existing consensus that Wikipedia is not a message board.  When we get too much into opinion, this is what the RD turns into.  So, we need to use judgment, and try to keep off-topic chatter to a minimum.  Friday (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also existing consensus that we should "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated."  This is from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer which is transcluded at the top of the individial RD pages. Friday (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can point to the discussion and consensus that led to the creation of that item, we don't really know if that was just what one person wrote or what the circumstances were. StuRat 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can tell you that I'm personally very confident that the points I made above reflect general consensus, but I'll understand if you don't just take my word for it.  If you don't buy it, go ahead and look- any of what you seek is there to see, in the relevant talk pages and histories.  At any rate, it's what we have, and if anyone disagrees and wishes to change it, go to the relevant talk pages and make your point.  Until then, existing consensus should be the basis for whatever we're deciding about the reference desk, right?  Friday (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If you claim there is an existing consensus, the burden of proof is on you. StuRat 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above- I pointed to several other agreed-upon pages that make my point.  If you disagree with those pages, that's your choice, but please don't just assert that existing guideline and policy pages don't reflect existing consensus.  I'm afraid I cannot say much more about this without pointlessly repeating past arguments, so I'll leave it at that.  Friday (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not, I am merely asserting, particularly for the last page, that you have not shown them to be formed based on consensus, so should not claim them to be. StuRat 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were created by the wiki process, which relies on consensus.  If you want more "proof", I'm really not sure what to tell you.  If you want more information, the histories are available to anyone who cares to look. Friday (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not reasonable for us to assume that the folks asking questions will be familiar with (or have any desire to follow) some set of rules we make.  Heck, it seems clear that many askers and answerers haven't even read Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer.  People ask whatever they ask.  If a question cannot be answered in any reasonably encyclopedic way, my plan is to tell the questioner this and ask if they care to ask a different question.  Friday (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so the first two are moot. As for the third, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "a little opinion isn't too harmful"- IMO opinion is often very useful to building a good answer. Now if there's just a response that's all an opinion or off-topic (like for example saying "why don't you stop making your peanuts so darned delicious! =)" in response to the guy asking about workers stealing his peanut harvest), of that I would say "it's not too harmful" but like I said of course in less extreme cases opinion can be very helpful to an OP, and give them a perspective they wouldn't have if answers were entirely encyclopedic --⁪frothT C 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: A question I'd removed which was heavily objected to and put back has turned into this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Sex_.26_Playmate.  I ask for opinions on whether or not this is a good use of Wikipedia.  The questioner has already been informed that Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions, and he comes back with "How good is the girls next door TV Series?"  Friday (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a problem with the original question (although I think the poster is pretty much a troll; he's the one responsible for the question about coerced anal sex and a bunch of other drivel), as long as it is answered factually, and respondents hold ourselves to a higher standard than the OP and not use the topic as an invitation to goof off. See, this is one of my main complaints (THB, take note of this guy cuz he's an example of a non-good faith poster who degenerates): it's not the original question, it's that the original question is just the starting point of a downward spiral. Which I don't personally think got too bad with this particular thread, but in the past I've seen things like this turn really ugly (gross ugly, not nasty ugly, although I've seen that too). Rather than deleting the thread, I think you should see about getting this editor banned for trolling, cuz I think that's basically what he's doing. I think he's amusing himself by posting hot button questions on the RDs. Anchoress 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I mostly agree- this thread is nowhere near an example of the worst we get here.  I think I was mainly extremely curious whether anyone can assert with a straight face that it's a good use of Wikipedia.  Things that are irrelevant to the project should be able to go away without much argument or fanfare.  Friday (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, does anyone object to my gentle reminder?  I sincerely hope this is way less controversial than outright removal.  Friday (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reminder was perfect. And timed/placed perfectly too. Good job! --Justanother 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone could possibly object to your reminder. However I think it's one of those "overt trolls" that should just be deleted.. NOT that I would delete it because I wouldn't dare to without significant consensus. But come on, constant sex? --⁪frothT C 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- that's why I removed it.  I was reverted, perhaps as more of a disapproval of me personally than as an indication that the thread was beneficial.  Again, good reason to remind everyone: our biggest concern must always be the good of the project, not our desire for "rule of law", or our personal feelings about other editors.  Friday (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Where it doesn't interfere with WP:POINT of course --⁪frothT C 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An action that improves Wikipedia is not disruption, by definition.  I suppose doing the right thing in a needlessly dramatic way might be a middle ground, tho.  (I would assert in such a case that when the trouble it causes outweighs the good, it's no longer a net improvement for the project.) Friday (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could refer questioneers seeking advice about sex techniques or medical advice to the Columbia University Go Ask Alice site at . They seem to be happy to take on any such question and refer it to medical personnel if appropriate. Edison 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been mentioned before, the problem with removing something and assuming that, if nobody puts it back, that means you had consensus, is that there are so many edits on these pages that likely nobody will ever notice the deletion.  So, people can just delete anything they don't like, and it will likely stay deleted.  That's not what we want to happen here.  If you insist on deleting things which are not disruptive, without consensus, would you at least be willing to keep a "deletion log" so we have some way to verify that those things should have been deleted ?  We could create a deletion log page and you could add a link to any edits which are deletions.  StuRat 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any removal of an editor's comments from the Ref Desk smust be accompanied by a posting on the edirot's talk page. Otherwise it looks like edit warring or vandalism on the part of the editor removing it. Edison 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that editor might not care, or might not know to contest a bad removal. --⁪frothT C 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a good use of Wikipedia? 

message: I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about a responder rather than answering the original question:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Ten.  Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Edison, this was the right thing to do.  Hopefully over time we'll all come to understand the difference between a page and its talk page, but until that day, whoever does understand should help out by moving things as appropriate. Friday (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, if I were a high schooler using the library, it would be kind of funny to see two real reference desk librarians getting into a yelling, screaming, face slappin', hair pullin', book throwin' fight over some question of metaphysics or 19th century political economy. But as another library volunteer, I would try to at least move the fight out of the public's view. In an extreme case here, disruptive editing could well go to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and ultimate banning from Wikipedia or from RD if civility cannot be achieved through Talk page discussion and informal mediation. Edison 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! Imagine some innocent teen being told by a reference librarian: "No you stupid child, I'm a grownup and I know better than you. You're wrong. The earth is not round, it's flat! Here's a copy of James Joyce's Ulysses. If you read it only three times you'll realize how ridiculous and naive you are in being so blindly brainwashed by "the establishment" into believing the Earth is round. In the words of the immortal Greek philosopher Gumdises: Audi alterum partem, ipso facto mens rea contra proferentum, e pluribus unum!. I couldn't have said it better myself." If that were the case, I'd say that a bit of "yelling, screaming, face slappin', hair pullin' and book throwin'" would actually greatly benefit the teen insofar as teaching him the value of skepticism, that just because an apparent authority figure says something, it ain't necessarily true. Loomis 08:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loomis, when I was seven years old I saw two librarians (not Ref Desk librarians because there was not actually a Ref Desk) get into a fight like that.  One of them pushed the other down a half-flight of stairs and the one that was pushed took that machine that stamps the card with the date and eats a chip off the side and smashed the other one's skull in, over and over again.  They had to close the library for almost a week to replace the carpet because they couldn't get the blood out.  And do you know, even after all of that, they still didn't agree with each other. Ever since then, I 've been a little afraid of libraries.  -THB 10:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conan the Librarian ? StuRat 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments

message: The above template has been available for a short time.  The proposal is to remove it:
*Retain the template.  The test period should be several months, not a few days.  A few users have already found it and used, and I expect more will do so in the future. StuRat 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on template removal 

message: We're talking about stopping recommending the use of , right?  That template is an experiment- so we should look at how it's working.  Take a look at what's using it.  I see only a small number of questions so far using this, one of them asked by Edison (who's clearly an experienced RD editor, not a newbie.)  So, it's not being commonly used yet.  I'm not saying this is automatically a reason to stop with the experiment, but I am suggesting that the experiment hasn't had much impact on how people are using the reference desks. Friday (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also :Category:Serious reference desk questions --⁪frothT C 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Give it some time. It's only a few days old. DirkvdM 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A stab at identifying the core issue

message: This template was suggested here by dirk on 12/3 and implemented the same night by me. It was in response to a lot of discussion about a new reference desk. This new reference desk would be highly formal and answers would be written in the tone of the mainspace and carefully referenced. The issue was divided; about half liked the idea and wanted it implemented, and the other half liked the idea but didn't like the idea of another desk fork (maybe bad feelings left over from fresh's fork proposal a couple of months ago). The point of the desk was to get front-page new users' input on whether they don't like the light tone that the RD was developing. If the desk was used extensively then obviously there's demand for more formal answers and we'd be forced into heavy reform. You'll like this one friday: I didn't think numbers alone would be enough so I proposed a discussion page (now here) that would allow users to give us input.. dirk took it one step further and sugested that we also implement a   template to guage numbers of people less inclined to type out comments. So that was it, it was implemented. 
Friday- to answer your comment about defaulting to pure jokery, I specifically crafted the language to avoid confusion- this concern had already been anticipated by me; see the bottom of this section. If you want more clarification, feel free to add something to the RD header about it; and I'd encourage you to do that because I think the last time it was used an OP seemed to be confused into thinking they'd recieve a joke if they didn't use the template. But the point is to give users an option to make it clear to responders that they want links and lots of em, and no tom-foolery about their question, so we can guage how many OPs think this is a better policy than the light-toned RD, and together with feedback gathered at the related talk page we can shape our policy to best suit our OPs needs. This is an experiment, and this is not anything permanent, it's a kind of creative poll to get OPs indirectly involved in our policy-making, and to encourage discussion. I think a lot of you guys either never knew this, or have lost sight of the original intent. But I think that the original intent may have been fulfilled, since users don't seem too interested in a formal ref desk option, that's why I "sorta supported" above. StuRat may be correct in saying that it just hasn't been out long enough to make any report on its popularity, and I'm inclined to agree with him until it becomes painfully obvious that nobody is really interested (which I think will become apparent in a few more weeks). Also some might not be satisfied with the experiment's validity (it hasn't run for long enough, ironic since the same people seem to want to shut it down; the people possibly most likely offended by a joke probably won't know how to transclude, something I think I make pretty clear but anyone's welcome to offer other suggestions on how to handle this) but whatever inaccuracies are involved I think the experiment has so far demonstated a significant lack of interest in a more formal reference desk. Now that might not be what the discussion is focusing around today but awhile ago that was the hot-button issue and we shouldn't just ignore those unanswered questions behind us. --⁪frothT C 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  One problem is: the default behavior is the simplest- whoever doesn't notice the instructions won't include a template.  So this will skew results in favor of people not using it.  What if we also let people use a  template for those who don't want a serious answer?  This might make both camps happy - questioners get the choice.  The objection remains that several editors have said that the default choice should be based on the assumption that people asked the question primarily to get an answer, not primarily for entertainment.  Friday (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The assumption is that people want a good answer (and the RD is very good at getting OPs good answers) but don't mind if humor or somewhat roundabout discussion takes place under their header. I think this is a fair assumption, for two reasons 1) because personally that's what I want under my questions and 2) because for example if I want help with a tricky piece of code and I go to a programming forum and I ask my question and then demand that the answerers use no humor in their responses, I can be sure that nobody will help me (read this timeless document). I wouldn't dare impose on the people that are volunteering their time to answer my question. Whether or not we at wikipedia consider it imposing is irrelevant, since most incoming OPs will feel that they can reasonably expect humor or whatever in the responses because after all, these people are helping me out, they can do whatever they want as long as I get my answer. So it's not at all unreasonable for the default to be what everyone would naturally assume (light, undisruptive humor and informality is allowed) and the strict tag to be extra --⁪frothT C 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alright, I'll buy that.  If I'm understanding you, you're suggesting that the default is to just be normal and assume that normal standards of social interaction apply.  I agree with this entirely.  That's why I was suggesting we drop mention of the new "strict" tag, but if people want to let the experiment run, I don't object much.  I'm just saying we should all remember to not read much into people not using it, for the reasons well explained above by TenOfAllTrades. Friday (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Nobody seems too interested in the encyclopedic-content debate anymore anyway --⁪frothT C 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, an experiment without a proper control can't really prove anything. Had there been an option to add a template "Please answer my quetion with lots of crude comments and inappropriate jokes" it would probably have been equally unused. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The default is what I described above, and it's how the internet works socially: "say whatever the heck you want since I'm not paying for your answer, but I sure hope that someone answers accurately." That's the control. The experiment is giving people the option of politely asking editors to only give useful answers, without feeling rude and without worrying about not getting an answer. --⁪frothT C 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "How the Internet works socially" is not a control, let alone a proper control. As an experiment, comparing the number of people who add a tag to the number of people who do nothing is pretty much a non-experiment. It certainly doesn't tell us anything useful. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an experiment to me. --⁪frothT C 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing you don't do experiments for a living, then. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a note. I wasn't the one who suggested this template. I suggested a gender-neutral one with a less conspicuous appearance. I got my way in the second sense, though. DirkvdM 08:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Froth's perspective