Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 39

message: Question moved to Wikipedia:Help desk#Searches of ANI.  --Lambiam 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searches of ANI 

message: Sorry it's so late. (Computing Desk:Classic code & magic constants - 1-4 Nov 07) - n = (n & 0x0f0f0f0f) + ((n & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4);. Yes, that's what I thought. Then the Comp desk proved geeks can be funny. --Dweller 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bribery worked! --⁪ffroth 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dweller's 11th weekly award. 

message: I removed this question per WP:SPAM because its the third of this type that I have noticed over the last few weeks. I'm not quite sure of the purpose of these types of questions, but it appears very likely to be a form of advertising (perhaps they consider Ref Desk geeks their target demographic, who knows?) Even if it isn't intentional spam, it serves no other purpose than to promote a TV show, and hence is not appropriate for the desks. Rockpocket 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on other posts from the same IP, it appears to me that this is just an eager believer in UFO's and hominid cryptids who wants us all to know the truth.  --Lambiam 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Several months ago, there was a persistent spammer hyping, IIRC, the Art Bell show in this way.  This one seemed different, but I agree, it was dubious and merited removal. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: In response to a question a few weeks ago, I decided to analyse the number of questions asked and answered on the Ref Desk. I chose 4 consecutive weeks to sample - from 1 - 28 October 2007 - and did the final count once all the questions were archived. The complete analysis is at User:Rockpocket/Ref desk stats, but the short version is that 1860 questions were asked, 75 of these questions remained unanswered (4%), providing a response rate of 96%. Thats 66.4 questions asked per day of which 2.7 go unanswered. There is some variation in answer rate between the different subjects, but among questions that, for whatever reason, can be reasonably expected to be answered, there isn't much difference. 
Also, while we are on the subject, 68 articles have now been "created or significantly enhanced" as a direct result of the efforts here in the 10 months since I have been keeping records (6 were added during the sample I analysed). On the first anniversary of WP:RDAC, I'll do a full analysis of that too.
So, all in all, despite the bickering over medical questions and deletionism, I think this shows, collectively, that you are doing a fine job, providing a robust service and directly enhancing the encyclopaedia in a small but significant way. Well done! Rockpocket 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a 'give yourselves a pat on the back' template? I think we all do a good job in general and that we all enjoy doing it reflects well on the desk as a whole and in the comprehensiveness of many answers and a good dose of humour that also makes it enjoyable to read. Lanfear's Bane | t 14:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Rockpocket's analysis left me wondering just how fast we were at answering questions.  I took four days' worth of Science desk archives drawn from the month of October and plotted the cumulative fraction of questions receiving a response against the time elapsed since the question was asked.  On the Science Desk, we should all be proud to note that half of all questions receive a response within 37 minutes!  Three quarters of all questions receive a response in less than three hours.  Less than five percent (3 of 62 in my sample) questions went unanswered.  Well done, everyone! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how good are we? 

message: There is no consensus when it is justified to remove a question, and there probably will never be one. But can we at least agree to some protocol? As a first try, I suggest this:
#Next to questions for medical advice we only remove questions (including postings that are not really questions) if they are obvious vandalism, in some way harmful (offensive, trolling, meant to inflame), or egregious soapboxing.
#An editor who removes a question, removes the whole thread, but leaves the header intact, and adds a text like: "Question removed. See [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Question on <topic> removed|talk page]]."
#On the talk page, they copy the removed thread and give their rationale for the removal.
#Discussion on whether the removal was appropriate takes place there, with the usual respect, friendliness, and assumption of good faith, that is the hallmark of discussions on this page.
#Everyone refrains from restoring the question unless the removal was clearly unreasonable, or it becomes clear that there is consensus that the question should not have been removed.
The "slow process" that did not work left the question on the RD page. Here, the assumption is that it has been removed already by some editor. For clarity, where I write "we only remove questions if" I do not mean "we always remove questions if" or "we must remove questions if".  --Lambiam 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocol?

message: People be warned.  The Antisemitism question which has just appeared on the Humanites Desk gives all the apperance of being posted by a troll who formerly went by the name of Barringa etc. etc., long since banned.  Clio the Muse 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism 

message: Recently, I've answered a lot of questions with an explanation that the Reference Desk is for factual questions, not opinion questions.  Is there a template that I can use instead? -- kainaw™ 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think such a template exists, but it is easy enough to make one if you know what it should say.  --Lambiam 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not a case of replacing two or three words with a template.  It is a case of using a template to explain a complicated and often abused community rule in the Reference Desk.  For example, see Template:dyoh.  It isn't just a replacement for "Do your own homework."  It is an explanation of why the Reference Desk does not do your homework for you. -- kainaw™ 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no rule about trying to draw a firm line between fact and opinion the ref desk, and I'm not sure where or why you'd want to draw a line between "opinion" and "interpretation". Plenty of opinions do not violate the soapbox rule, the reference desk is a place to solicit answers, some of which are going to require interpretation and opinion. Hint: if you are the only one who seems to want to use such a template, then it probably doesn't need a template. Or if it does, for whatever godawful reason, host it in your own userspace. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  Questions such as "Who thinks Dan in Real Life is the most boring movie every?" are not intended to promote anything but a discussion forum.  It is only opinion, not an opinion about a fact or interpretation of what could be fact.  It is completely opinion and cannot be answered by any reference source.  Therefore, it does not belong in the Reference Desk.  It belongs on a discussion forum. -- kainaw™ 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact vs. Opinion Template 

message: On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives:
:To see which archives of are active, check the following pages with recent changes to the archives:
--zenohockey 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd language at Archives 

message: I think I smell a troll. Can an admin take a look? Is this the right place to broach this? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's user:Barringa. See last February's AN and ANI, as well as last March too. Personally, I suggest ignoring and reverting since he could only be range-blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See also Clio's warning above ("Antisemitism"), by the way. 71.100 is one of those initial number sequences worth remembering. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding 

message: Goodbye to all you good people at the refdesks - can't cope with the bollocks elsewhere on wikipedia anymore. My email link at userpage should still work if you want to chat to a curmudgeonly Cornish mindless-policy-wonk! Best wishes to you all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to see you go, even in my short time here, hope you return in the future. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adios to you, Duncan - but maybe you could abandon all except the Reference Desks? You wouldn't be alone. Xn4 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both - we've had our disagreements here, which makes your good wishes all the more appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it's any of my business but the more good people leave, the more room there is for the bastards and their progeny. Illegitimi non carborundum. I have certainly much appreciated your contributions to the refdesk. Keria (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sort of back, but likely to be editing with substantially lowered levels of energy for a while. Thank you everyone who has been so kind and supportive, it has helped me enormously. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear, I mainly hang out on the ref desk and only correct things I see as I go along in the main encyclopedia, I don't really edit. Also you have to remember it's not about the individuals and the discussions (read: arguments), it's about maintaining Wikipedia as a whole and for all of us, helping people on the desks. Don't lets throw the baby out with the bath water, we'd rather keep you here. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we'd rather keep you here if only to share the pain around more evenly :). --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again - my thanks. I now appear to have created an article which has been nominated for the Did you know thingy, so am doubly glad you have persuaded me to stay! DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost as satisfying doing the nominating.. track down wherever they decide on the DYK, the wiki news, the featured pictures, etc (NOT the featured articles); it's very easy to get content to appear on the front page if you but track it down. I say not FAs because the FA process is insane --⁪ffroth 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Duncan—want a tip? Click "logout". Then go back to the Ref Desk. You'll be surprised how much freer you feel from the rest of the nonsense on the 'pedia, and you'll no longer have a watchlist to obsess over or a talk page full of old baggage. Worked for me, anyhow. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Privacy concerns? Apparently you live near Methuen, Massachusetts (in the area between Methuen and Cambridge probably), which has a zipcode of 01844. The average value of a home in that zipcode is about $156,000, making it a lower-middle class area if I know my New England. Just be aware that this is all public information, and that there are ip geolocation databases --⁪ffroth 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, wrong on all accounts except for the state and general area ("in the area between Menthuen and Cambridge" covers half a dozen cities). IPs tell you were the ISP is located; doesn't mean it tells you where I am located. New England is a varied place; pick the wrong city and you're in a totally different income bracket, totally different place. These aren't the sorts of privacy concerns that worry me. Nor should they worry Duncan—he happily offers up the city he lives in (and the city he grew up in) in his user page. In fact, I can find out about you just by knowing your name (which you happily offer up on yours) than you can from my IP address. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I do currently live in a city (and was born in another), I would like to point out that i did not grow up in a city! DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good show! I use the term "city" pretty inspecifically, as do I think many Americans. :-) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My aunt lives in Massachusetts, and her "city" would just about qualify as a small town in England. It has its own police force, fire brigade, education authority, traffic laws and licensing laws. I'm generally in favour of subsidiarity, but just sometimes I think it can be taken a tad too far! DuncanHill (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Froth didn't check the IP address correctly.  It comes up in Malden, MA, which has a city council - so I can see it being properly referred to as a city.  As the anonIP mentioned, the Malden Comcast hub services a lot of nearby towns - it appears that much of it goes to Medford.  Someone in the area may know what the "UBR" designation on the address refers to.  That is local.  For example, they use DT, NCH, EC, and WA where I live.  Looks like nonsense if you don't know the area.  Oh - and DuncanHill... good that you didn't leave. -- kainaw™ 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye folks 

message: If anyone is interested there is some relevant information to be found, about the risks of providing medical advice online, in the November 2007 issue of Wired. According to the Director of the High Tech Law Institute, a medical disclaimer does not make the person providing medical advice lawsuit proof, he says it may "ameliorate the risks, but too often people over-rely on them." A lawyer who specializes in such cases notes that when "engaging in particularized discussions" about medical conditions online one's legal position becomes "a whole lot riskier." Rockpocket 01:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the on-line version: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_kia.  --Lambiam 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Worth bearing in mind, too, is that our policy against offering medical advice isn't solely for the purpose of covering anyone's ass from a legal standpoint—we're also interested in avoiding harm to Wikipedia and it's readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "cover your ass" both medical and legal advice?  --Lambiam 13:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also a safety tip for anyone who goes to jail after taking legal advice from strangers on the internet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is allowed to take one's donkey to prison? DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome, people have to carefully weigh their words in conversation lest they be thrown in prision for illegal speech. Totalitarianism, ho! *fog horn* Culture of fear for the win! --⁪ffroth 04:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of nobody here that feels we should be able to give medical advice in the Reference Desk.  However, I do know of many examples where medical information (such as the name of body part or the RDA for a vitamin) were considered medical advice and removed from the Reference Desk.  Does this article strengthen the argument that anything that can be rationalized to have anything to do with the medical field should be banned from the Reference Desk? -- kainaw™ 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe so. It simply reinforces the legal (in addition to the ethical and moral) reasons why one should think twice before giving what may be construed to be medical advice, even if one doesn't mean it in that way. I think they key phrase is "particularized discussions" - which is different from general questions about the medical field. Rockpocket 01:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on the risks of providing medical advice 

message: Large cladograms /  phylogenies in biological taxonomy can be hard to read because they can sprawl over several screenfuls. It struck me that this is a fairly common problem on the web, and that a common solution is to provide an expanding / collapsing tree hierarchy, like those use for folders in Windows Explorer and most email programs. Version simplemented on Web pages often have additional facilities, e.g.: "expand all" and "collapse all" buttons; the ability to restore the hierarchy to its last state if the visitor leaves and returns to the page. Doing this on a Web page requires: some special CSS to define the tree's appearance; Javascript to manipulate the tree's appearance and to save its state as a cookie (strictly per session, i.e. 
vanishes when the visitor quits the browser; no harm done if the visitor's browser is set to reject all cookies). If the visitors' browser is set to disallow Javascript, the tree apppears with all branches fully expanded, i.e. as at present. To cater for printing, the CSS should include an "@media print" section which sets all branches to expanded. Once the relevant files have been set up, an editor who wants to use this technique would: include the script (once per article) by linking to a file; insert a few lines of Javascript code per tree, mainly to pass to the script the HTML id of the specific tree; code the tree as HTML nested unordered lists (UL and LI tags). I know how to produce the necessary Javascript and CSS in a standard Web page as my own site uses this technique. Would it be (a) permissible (b) desirable for Wikipedia pages with with large taxonomy diagrams? I've searched the Help pages and could only find Help:User_style#JavaScript, which refers to User pages. Philcha (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to talk to the super-high-ups with access to the common monobook CSS/Javascript files, since they'd be the only ones who could implement it. Try asking at village pump --⁪ffroth 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll post it there.Philcha (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DHMTL for cladograms / phylogenies? 

message: Ammar (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is a request to somehow fix the link :fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز مرجع in the list of interwiki links on Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header – which is not a protected page. Unfortunately, it is not clear what it should be changed to.  --Lambiam 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing, I don't know either :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing link to farsi page 

message: One of our OP's just gave me a barnstar - which was nice.  But it occurs to me that there isn't a Ref.Desk barnstar.  Many Wiki projects have them - why not us?
I'd be happy to draw one (I did the automotive project barnstar) - although it's more traditional to ask for contributions and vote.  Does anyone have any ideas?
SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the RefDesk Article Collaboration WikiProject, this image from Commons (Sciences humaines.svg) is used. Perhaps it might be suitable for working into a RefDesk Barnstar? Xn4 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always loved those hats. Adding some more stars, because the volunteers are surprising and swirly creatures who crawl across the deep sea floor looking for information, and only get brittle when dehydrated. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Could the image somehow (I have no immediate idea how) convey the idea that the RD volunteers are like librarians?  --Lambiam 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ook! - EronTalk 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooook!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following Sluzzelin's thought, the motto of the Barnstar could be "Squamous, omnipotent and kind"? Xn4 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should probably be "squamous, omniscient, and kind", methinks.  Does anyone know how to say that in Latin? I suppose someone could ask at the appropriate Desk.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How is this for a librarian without a beard?  --Lambiam 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not upset the shade of Rupert Brooke. Nor the wearers of the better kind of beard. Xn4 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS - Squameus, omnipotens ac benevolus Xn4 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Not 'omnipotens' - we need 'omniscient'...which is probably the same deal: 'omnisciens'. SteveBaker (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why "squamous"? The brittle stars in the image are not covered with scales. I think they may be called "brittle" for their propensity to give up an arm to escape a predator. In Latin, "brittle" can be fragilis. I'm not so sure I'd readily shed an arm to escape an RD predator, though, my regenerative capacities with respect to limbs being somewhat challenged. Also, the word omnisciens is gender-neutral, but squameus and benevolus are not. The latter could be replaced by gender-neutral benevolens.  --Lambiam 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, dear, I'm afraid it was a whimsical thought, based on Sluzzelin's "swirly creatures who crawl across the deep sea floor" and the poem Heaven ("Fish, fly-replete, in depth of June, Dawdling away their wat'ry noon...") Attempts to turn it into Latin and to tweak 'omnipotent' into 'omniscient' don't much help the joke. If a thoroughly serious slogan is wanted, do please forget it! Xn4 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the best ideas come about that way!  I don't think we need 100% serious.  Barnstars are frequently silly or funny.  A serious sounding latin phrase is rather neat because it looks library-ish and formal - but if future recipients discover on translation that this weird word "squamous" has been used (which, let's face it, not many people know) - then even better that it has to be looked up and found to mean "scaley".  I like that word because it implies an armoured, tough, resilient kind of a creature - which is precisely what you need to be to survive in this weird environment. SteveBaker (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a few admins about I'd shed an arm to see the back of.... DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In a more modest vein, Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit, which I think suggests the collaborative nature of the desks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which being freely translated means "No man is at all time wise". Steve, you're right, this would be better as a motto for the desks than for a barnstar. DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't about modesty.  We aren't using this as our emblem - it's an award to be given in praise of some particular high achievement.  Modesty is the LAST thing we need.  Efflusive praise is what's needed here!  Also, for us non-linquists, could people who post latin mottoes please supply the translation!  Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We should remember that this isn't supposed to be an emblem of the RD (although it might be argued that the RD could use a nice emblem - we can use something much more detailed for that since it wouldn't be constrained to 100x100 pixels).  But what we're talking about here is an award to be given to RD denizens by grateful OP's - or (perhaps more rarely) by other RD folk who see some especially valuable reply or contribution.  Being omniscient, kind and resilient/tenacious are traits that are valuable here - and that makes them the right kind of thing to put on the award. Perhaps scaley is a bit odd - but squamous is such a beautiful word, it's hard to resist.  We could even say that the award is supposed to be given to people who come up with information that is true, was hard to find and who exhibited particular helpfulness to the OP.  The brittle-star is just a beautiful thing - it suits the high-relief brush-script of the text and it looks just enough like a barnstar to be usable here - this particular drawing of it has an air of science and that late victorian art style that somehow conveys that this came from a book in a dusty old library somewhere.  But if we want to go with this general idea - we'd better get the latin utterly 100% perfect!  My son is taking Latin in school - if we can agree on final wording, I can run the translation past his teacher. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Uploaded and galleried the "I need you", the Chocolate and the Library Barnstars tests. Excuse: I was drunk! Keria (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded The hairy starfish Barnstar and The flower starfish Barnstar Keria (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For an earlier proposal, not universally acclaimed, see Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive10#Wise Man Award.  --Lambiam 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, *feels smooth chin* ---Sluzzelin talk 10:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It deserved to fail: (a) it was sexist, (b) it was a terrible picture - at 100x100 resolution, it could be ANYTHING, (c) being wise isn't the sole qualification for being awarded the star - it could be tenacity for example, (d) it didn't look remotely like a barnstar (which is a bad sign for something that's supposed to suggests that a barnstar has been awarded!) SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a RefDesk Barnstar. 

message: How about this for a compromise guideline:
# As a matter of policy, we will provide help for homework but not a direct answer.
# Indirect answers should be limited to:
#* Links to articles where the answer may reasonably be found.
#*: eg "Who was king of england in 1500?" - we reply "See List of English monarchs"
#* The reply "Which specific part of the problem do you need help with?"...with appropriate followup.
#*: eg "If an accurate pendulum clock has it's pendulum lengthened by 10% by how much will it be wrong 24 hours later?" - we reply - "Are you having trouble finding how a pendulum's swing depends on it's length or do you need to know how pendulum clocks work?"
#* Replies that 'teach a man to fish'  rather than 'giving a man a fish'.
#*: eg "My teacher gave me a bunch of pictures of triangles and asked me to say which kind each one is and I don't know how." - we reply - "There are right triangles, equilateral triangles, iscoscelese triangles, acute triangles, obtuse triangles and scalene triangles: A right triangle has one angle that's 90 degrees, an equilateral triangle has...." etc.
# If the OP specifically states that this is a homework question then we will use a nicely worded template that says something like "Please do not ask homework questions" - we will not come up with our own variations on that theme.  We will still provide indirect answers.
# If the OP does not say that it's homework then we WP:AGF and we do not say or even imply "This is a homework question so we can't help" - nor do we deploy the template.  However, we still avoid answering directly and stick with indirect answers.
# We do not delete homework questions.
# If we wish to debate whether a specific question is homework or not, or the appropriateness of various RD staff's replies, we do that here (the RD talk page) or on user talk pages.
# We retain the warning to OP's that we do not welcome homework questions - even though that is not strictly true per this policy.
IMHO, this is a useful compromise because it avoids the problem of being 100% certain that a question is a homework matter.  If we guess that it's homework and we're wrong, we do not upset or embarrass the OP - and we still provide a service (albeit not so well as for a question that's "normally" worded).  We only slap wrists when someone openly admits that it's homework.  If we guess it's homework and we're right - or if the OP admits that it's homework, we do not end up helping a lazy child - but a child who has genuine difficulties with their homework will be taught rather than being able to skip over the problem without learning.
SteveBaker (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's roughly true - my claim to novelty here is embodied in rules (3) and (4).  These take out the 'judgement' aspect and avoid the problem (which I've seen far too many times) of someone asking a reasonable question that could easily not be homework and have someone tell them "We won't do your homework for you." and thereby offending a perfectly innocent person.  With these two rules, we only ever tell them off if they openly admit it's homework - and when we do tell them off it's with a standard template (something like  but shortened because we now KNOW that it's homework).  When there is any room for doubt, we don't tell them off and each RD respondant makes up his or her own mind about how to reply. SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/ hydnjo, if they state up front that a question is from their homework, then they've probably read the "How to..." section—why template 'em? Also, i don't think we really have a "warning to OP's that we do not welcome homework questions" (no. 7.), "we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand". I would even water that down some: we're happy to help with your homework, but do not welcome cut-and-paste questions or the expectation of receiving a cut-and-paste-able response.—eric 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Modest Proposal