Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 20

message: I had no idea that Wikipedia:Reference desk was protected.  The reason seems to have been to keep questions from being placed there by inexperienced users.  I think semi-protection will be sufficient for this, so I have reduced the level of protection.  NeonMerlin, unless you're very new, you can now add the link yourself! -- SCZenz 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I reversed that. Template:RD header is free to fiddle with. --HappyCamper 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I missed the fact that the header is separate... my bad.  But still, the reason you gave for the protection only justifies semi-protection, not full protection, as far as I can tell.  Unless I'm missing something? -- SCZenz 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's very little to modify on WP:RD beyond the transclusion of the header and a bunch of cats; I guess that anyone who ought to fiddle with the main RD page will be able to find the template and deal with it (semi-protected though it may be).  On the other hand, having a fully-protected WP-RD helps avoid the confusion and inconvenience that might otherwise result from a relative newbie (remember, editors can edit semi-protected pages just four days after registration) inadvertently placing a comment on the main page.  I guess this is a situation where I can't see the harm in full protection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only quibble would be that since protection (of any sort) is not "the wiki way", the burden of proof should be on someone who wants to increase the protection level of a page, not decrease it. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't think it's worth arguing over. -- SCZenz 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Protection is clearly justified --⁪frothT C 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgraded to semi-protected 

message: Where did this page come from?   Zoinks, if only I had a pop-culture question, I'd be the first to ask something here. --Cody.Pope 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wot done it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#Popular_culture_and_law_reference_desks doesn't take much on a wiki. meltBanana 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say good job, I was getting really tired of all those questions, like what are the lyrics, which episode is that etc etc. in the Humanities Section. --Foundby 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  :-)  Marco polo 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop-Culture Page?

message: Could sombody make sure that there is a consistent header across the different desks - keeping the order the same (suggest alphabetical) and using either "entertainment" or "popular culture" as a heading but not both. Thanks.87.102.22.58 13:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok thanks.87.102.22.58 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *It looks too asymmetric, what we really need is an 8th desk to even everything out--74.66.242.190 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The so-called asymmetry doesn't bother me so long as the exceptional 7th is Miscellaneous (or even Misc. were space at a premium) -- Deborahjay 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I could suggest homework - just help - not essay writing for them - aimed at pre college and lower college levels perhaps. ie not PhD level?87.102.22.58 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually forget homework - what about 'the world' - seem like a good idea - where is such and such a place - what is the logest river, gdp of such and such a place...  These questions don't really fit in science or humanities - should I suggest it in a spearate post?87.102.22.58 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call that "Geography" (although not everyone would know that includes political geography, as well).  "The World" is rather more vague, and could mean many things, like news, too.  Another suggestion is "Sex and Relationships", to protect those who would be offended by such talk (who would presumably avoid the desk). StuRat 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd think newbies would have trouble telling which to use.  In the black hole example, for instance, aren't they natural, and pretty much proven to exist, like Cygnus X1 ? StuRat 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there was discussion about a legal issues desk once. Not legal advice just discussion of legal issues. Don't know what happened with the discussion Nil Einne 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header

message: I've created a template for marking deleted comments, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines#Experimental template for marking a deleted comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for marking deleted comments 

message: Since the opening of the Reference desk/Entertainment (f.k.a. Reference desk/Popular Culture) on December 20, there's been some pertinent discussion there, in the form of queries. Would it be a good idea to transfer them (copied or ??) to this page? I hesitate to do so myself, without some consultation with you other editors. Thanks! -- Deborahjay 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They absolutely don't belong there. Copy away, or at least delete them. --⁪frothT C 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Copied: See "New popular culture desk" (above, Dec. 20), with Level 4 headers.  -- Deborahjay 23:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Afterthought: ummm... I was reluctant to perform the delete suggested by froth, as I don't know how that would affect our fellow editors who initiated and participated in discussion there. What I did was mark each of the three sections with a note explaining the move. OK? -- Deborahjay 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Follow-up: Thanks to advice solicited from froth, I deleted the now-redundant content on the Entertainment RD itself, replacing it with a  Moved notice under those (3) comments' original headings. -- Deborahjay 05:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The discussion re: WP:RD '''Popular Culture''' vs. '''Entertainment''' "over there"...? 

message: In hopes of widening the pool of participants, I've been thinking of ways to increase awareness among the Wikipedian user community of the role of Reference Desk volunteer staffer. Is there a Userbox for this and I simply didn't succeed in finding it? Or what, if anything, would you suggest? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont think so. Suggest man breaking rocks whilst being whipped. 8-)--Light current 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about something along the lines of Template:DYK? Collect some of the more interesting questions and answers, or article suggestions, and stick 'em in a short template for pasting on user pages.EricR 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Userbox|Userbox]] for [[WP:RD]] volunteers? 

message: This question posted on Humanities is about square dance and night clubs. Is that something which one should start moving to Entertainment - or suggest that to the OP? Or is it not the kind of entertainment envisaged? -Seejyb 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to move, I'd say. My understanding of the new Entertainment RD is that it's for aspects of the Entertainment industry (e.g. per its description at the top of the Project page) - while that query is about participating in a form of dance as an activity, which is Humanities turf as either culture or society. (BTW, what's "OP"?)  -- Deborahjay 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Original post(er). It was a lapse: I'm glad I did not use the acronym on the ref desk. The fewer tech acronyms the better, I think it confuses people. --Seejyb 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving question about entertainment  

message: :::There's more to anatomy than blood.  What answer were you looking for other than "grasshopper guts"?  Are you just being silly?  Please only ask reference desk questions when you have a legitimate question.  Ned Wilbury 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be here. But theres nothin to discuss now between you two-- is there? 8-)--Light current 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, part of that comment was meta-discussion, sure, so it maybe more properly belongs here.  However, as for the point of the issue, that question looks more like a joke and less like a real question as it goes on.  Isn't there a bit in the guideline about not using the ref desk as a chat board?  Ned Wilbury 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but Ned, dont you see you could be stirring things up again by posting like this? I would just forget about it. It will go away in 12 hrs if you dont keep picking at it (that is not medical advice) 8-)--Light current 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-commment from Science Desk

message: A petition to recall User:Friday from his position as administrator has been placed on his talk page.  Interested parties are requested to sign and/or comment on it here: User talk:Friday#Petition to recall User:Friday from the position of admin. -THB 22:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Petition to tell you three to knock off turning what could be a nice effort to find common ground as to the best way to run the RD into a fractional personal crusade and witch hunt and if you'all didn't start it (nanner nanner) then you sure as shootin are milking it for all it is worth. Both Friday and SCZenz have admitted errors and have corrected themselves and been corrected by others and accepted that correction. Show me where you three have budged an inch or accepted any offered correction. Why not just back away from this battle that you are the main ones fighting at this point and withdraw your "petition" and let's get this guideline wrapped up instead of wasting more time with in-fighting. --Justanother 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else signs we may do just that.  However, if others feels as we do, that numerous Admins, Friday included, have abused their Admin authority to punish the inclusionists and try to score a "win" for the deletionists, then the petition will stand.  As for the guidelines, anything we add to them is quickly deleted, so we can't have any input there, can we ? StuRat 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...now we're up to 4. StuRat 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ...now 7. StuRat 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We only need six! Why do we wait? Come in No 13- your time is up 8-))--Light current 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No sorry! Friday has exceeded his authority on a number of occaisions. This is not just about the guidelines- its about Fridays attitude and action in general! 8-(--Light current 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, how does the reference desk benefit from the announcenement of a petition on a particular admin, and how will your cause benefit from this or from the use of belligerent language and spirit? It frustrates me when editors are being blocked over this debate, and watching your bold attempts to 'score a win' is painful to me in the light of this assymetry. Are you wiki-martyrs? This wont work, and draws you away from providing valuable help at the reference desk. ---Sluzzelin 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK tell us (politely) where to stick it (our petition)!--Light current 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: lol Light current. I have no clue, nor do I know whether it's appropriate to stick it here or not, nor do I care. I'm asking how it will help the reference desk, and whether resuming positions and taking actions will help find a solution that works for everyone. Sorry, if I came across as rude.  ---Sluzzelin 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly not rude my friend! Fridays actions have impacted the RDs sure, but the actions have also impacted other areas of WP as quoted on his/her talk page in the submission. I invite youu to peruse Faradays Fridays contributions--Light current 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal here, whether Friday runs for re-election or not, and whether he wins or is defeated (if he does run), is for the Admins on the deletionist side to finally understand that filing RFCs, TFDs, MFDs, AN/I's, launching sockpuppets, doing non-consensus deletions, blocking users, etc., are not valid methods to use to try to "win" the inclusionist/deletionist debate.  If they want to participate in this debate, then they should act as editors and put away their "big sticks".  If they want to act as Admins, then they shouldn't participate in the debate.  You can't have both, the conflict of interest inherent in that behavior is simply unacceptable.  And, incidentally, getting a fellow Admin to block or otherwise punish the inclusionists instead of doing it yourself doesn't make it right, either. StuRat 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of personally using block buttons, none of the above are administrative actions.  I've given the blocks up, personally, since I am personally involved in the debate; so I guess I've taken your advice already.  Using sockpuppets is unacceptable for anyone, but you'd need evidence to throw around accustations like that. -- SCZenz 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, but you still try your best to get your Admin buddies to put blocks on us, don't you ?  Like your recent AN/I complaint about me calling into question whether an anon I/P with little history is a sock. StuRat 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do I smell a sock?Edison 20:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your statement assumes that all Admins are absolutely perfect.  Many people at this desk have had problems with the actions of deletionist Admins (yourself included), so I tend to think that at least part of the problem is with the Admins. StuRat 12:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an overreaction. And I am not familiar with such petitions having any effect. RfC and RFARB are the routs I have heard of, and Arb has sometimes resulted in penalties against other than the person it is aimed at. Edison 20:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see either of those helping.  Heck, one of the worst offender, Radiant!, is even running for ArbComm. StuRat 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition to recall User:Friday from position as administrator

message: It's realy starting to get depressing hearing all these questions on the reference desk about drugs. Really, Wikipedia could get in quite a bit of trouble if someone does something and kills themselves because someone told them about it on the reference desk. I mean, at a real library reference desk, if someone walked up and said something like "can I get high off of this substance?" would the librarian really tell them? Seriously, there should be a policy on replies to questions about drugs. Because, what if someone asks a question, and someone else gives them a crappy answer, and the person tries it out and gets themselves killed, and then someone related to them sues Wikipedia for giving out the advice that got them killed. That would really tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. Maybe there should be a policy that all questions about drug use should be deleted, because they kind of come under tha category of medical/legal advice. They come under this category because they could have serious medical and/or legal repercussions. It makes sense in a way, doesn't it? Anyone agree with me? Ilikefood 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy for answering questions involving drugs, etc. 

message: I've cut out a chunk (roughly Dec 15 to Dec 18) and sent it to archive (19) heaven. I indend to add more to archive 19 as it seems that the archives should be longer that what I have cut. The back and forths here have been quite ... well, Kb intensive. If anyone has a suggestion as to how far archive 19 should reach down to then please advise. I don't think that three days is reasonable but I'd like some input from others. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 02:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say just archive in 32k chunks and sod it!  8-)--Light current 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 19

message: Looks like the bot (I can't remember its name :( ) hasn't been inserting the big "December xx" headings - what happened to it? —AySz88\^-^ 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to do it tomorrow (until it gets sorted out). I wonder if it could have anything to do with the new desk (bot confusion?).  --hydnjo talk 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is more than just a date adding bot, the desks are already pushing 300 kb each after a mere 3 days of bot inactivity --71.247.120.5 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah (sigh) I know, which is why I have no intention of tackling it today. :-()  --hydnjo talk 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Date headers are now caught up through Dec 26. Dec 27 (UTC) is due in about 2 hours and I'll do that at that time. I've not been paying close attention to "active days" that the bot has been leaving behind. Any input on that would be helpful to me for archiving.  --hydnjo talk 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll run the bot to catch up with the actual archiving later today (UTC) - sorry about the problems regarding the bot (my internet tends to break, and the server isn't very reliable either :( ) Martinp23 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Martin, I'll back off a while so as to not screw up the bot-man!  --hydnjo talk 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's running now, very slowly :(. Martinp23 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo! Finished after two hours (and I'm very tired :( ).  In the process, I've moved the bot to a new system which should speed it up (I'm now using some code I wrote for NPW).  Hopefully it's all gone well, and I'll set it up to do the new entertainment desk tomorrow later on today.  Thanks, Martinp23 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date insert bot 

message: There seem to be two mutually exclusive responses at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Heavy water production so WTF is poor Anthonysenn to make of this? Has our quarreling now become so divisive that it has slopped over to the desks themselves? Can't one of the responders back off and just say sorry? I know from this map that there's supposed to be a forest around here but these damn trees...  :-(  --hydnjo talk 18:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StuRat had the general principles of isotope separation correct, but got the details of the specific method for producing heavy water wrong. Hipocrite corrected this, but prefaced his correction with "Right, except no", which could cause confusion about which parts of StuRat's response he was correcting. Trying to help, I have added a short clarification note to the Science RD which will, I hope, remove any confusion. Gandalf61 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Gandalf, for jumping in and providing your excellent summary. Your clarifying response about electrolysis is also cited in WP's heavy water article which is an additional benefit. :-)  --hydnjo talk 23:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, adding a correction afterwards is the right way to handle mistakes. StuRat 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stu, I'm just trying to understand your position. Do you think that the poster of an incorrect response has any obligation to go back and amend or extend their response for the sake of clarity or do you feel that it is up to others to try and clarify the situation?  --hydnjo talk 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone should list the info they believe to be correct, with any links they can find, then leave it to the OP to decide which is right.  There isn't any need to bring it up here, unless the discussion degenerates into nastiness (which we want to keep away from the newbies). StuRat 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see us refer to articles or reliable sources than just say what we believe to be correct.  I remember some people mentioning some rather odd things that they "believed to be correct", yet we were unable to turn up any evidence to support that belief.  Friday (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stu, that is a plain and simple answer which I think is pretty lame. "Leave it to the OP" indeed! I see, when any of we volunteers find that we have mistakenlly responded then in the face of a cited (or otherwise genuine and robust) response showing that our response was mistaken then our first response should be to cover our asses so that the community will think that in some obscure way, our response is vindicated (shoot, they never really cited a rigorous claim to make my response entirely wrong). Screw it, leave it to the OP to sort it out. I know that there's a lot of "responses" in there but hey, you figure it out.  --hydnjo talk 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OP confusion

message: Is there some sort of logic as to why the desks are ordered the way they are in the header of each desk?  It's not alphabetical since Science comes first followed by Mathmatics.  So what is the thinking behind this?  Amount of traffic for the hard subjects, then Misc. thrown in at the end since it's a catchall?  The reason I ask is because up until a few days ago, Humanities was first and now it's Science.  Dismas|(talk) 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an attempt to keep similar things together.  Math and Computers and Science are related.  Humanities and Entertainment are related.  Misc is related to everything. StuRat 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Language is included inline with Humanities and Entertainment which makes sense.  --hydnjo talk 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic behind order of desks in header? 

message: I'm not sure who copied everything to the talk page here (see below), but I want to be clear I have no problem with that.  Perhaps I should even have done it myself. -- SCZenz 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was I. Yes you should. 8-(--Light current 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it being copied somewhere, rather than simply removed, makes a big difference to you... then I shall make that my default action in the future. -- SCZenz 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it halves the damage 8-(--Light current 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire stuff replaced 

message: === Original posts (the following, down to the line, - is what we are discussing) ===
If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women say Toxoplasma_gondii, would she turn into a sex addict. If I'm caught would I go to prison? 202.168.50.40 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to your second question, I would hope so.  --hydnjo talk 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Extending my response out of order (if I'm allowed): I had no idea that there would be such controversy about this trollish subject matter and had hoped (naively) that saying such behavior would result in prison time (if caught) would end the thread. It seems that that is not the case at all and that the un-crisp boundaries of proper vs criminal behavior are now being debated under this heading and that is wrong in this venue. If I had any hand in this by remarking that it was "my hope" that such behavior (implicitly) would be criminal then I'm sorry for inflaming this sorry subject and it's resultant debate. If on the other hand something useful happens well, that's WP.--hydnjo talk 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you have linked the appropriate page. Have you read it? Esp this bit:
For women:
    * A tendency to be more outgoing, friendly and more promiscuous
    * They are considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls
    "In short, it can make men behave like alley cats and women behave like sex kittens" — Nicky Boulter
''
--Light current 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, your're not planning on wearing a mask whilst you do this dirty deed are you? 8-)--Light current 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Administering any substance with the capability of changing someone's physiology or mental state without their knowledge or consent is illegal in most jurisdictions. It doesn't have to be deadly in order to be considered poison. It's 'administering a noxious substance', and it's a crime. Using the altered state to commit another crime severely compounds the penalty. Anchoress 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Drugging people is illegal, and drugging people in order to make them sexually compliant is considered rape (in the countries I'm familiar with, including the United States).  See date rape and date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has injection of parasites been called drugging? Also drugging is not called rape over here. Like when I went to have a tooth extracted, I was not raped as far as I know 8-?--Light current 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's giving someone with something, without their consent, that alters their mood to make them more sexually complaint that makes it rape.  Read date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alcohol?--Light current 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our article on date rape, alcohol is the most common drug used in rapes. -- SCZenz 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So?--Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that administering drugs without consent is probably illegal in most countries. But administering drugs is not equivalent to rape or any other crime. --Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said it was, LC.  You're creating an argument where one doesn't exist.  Given the seriousness of the subject matter, I think creating such an argument is most unpleasant.  Can you please leave this subject alone? -- SCZenz 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt start the argument. You did. Your post implies that admiinstering of any substance that dulls the senses is equivalent to rape. It plainly is not 8-)--Light current 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women" - That sentence ends the argument, LC. The questioner is asking for (hypothetically or not) date rape drug advice, and making jokes about it is not acceptable here or anywhere. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the page on the substance in question, it is not described as a date rape drug. According to the pages descriiption it acts more like an aphrodisiac.--Light current 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: GHB can be used for medical purposes as well. What is important is the way it is administered and the obvious intent to commit a crime by the OP. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know the OP was intending a crime? (Apart from the injection which is of course a crime which I do not condone in any way shape or form) BTW whats GHB? Were we talking about that?--Light current 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone feels that their post is in the wrong section, please move it 8-)--Light current 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to turn woman into a sex addict? 

message: If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women say Toxoplasma_gondii, would she turn into a sex addict. If I'm caught would I go to prison? 202.168.50.40 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to your second question, I would hope so.  --hydnjo talk 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Extending my response out of order (if I'm allowed): I had no idea that there would be such controversy about this trollish subject matter and had hoped (naively) that saying such behavior would result in prison time (if caught) would end the thread. It seems that that is not the case at all and that the un-crisp boundaries of proper vs criminal behavior are now being debated under this heading and that is wrong in this venue. If I had any hand in this by remarking that it was "my hope" that such behavior (implicitly) would be criminal then I'm sorry for inflaming this sorry subject and it's resultant debate. If on the other hand something useful happens well, that's WP.--hydnjo talk 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you have linked the appropriate page. Have you read it? Esp this bit:
For women:
    * A tendency to be more outgoing, friendly and more promiscuous
    * They are considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls
    "In short, it can make men behave like alley cats and women behave like sex kittens" — Nicky Boulter
''
--Light current 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, your're not planning on wearing a mask whilst you do this dirty deed are you? 8-)--Light current 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Administering any substance with the capability of changing someone's physiology or mental state without their knowledge or consent is illegal in most jurisdictions. It doesn't have to be deadly in order to be considered poison. It's 'administering a noxious substance', and it's a crime. Using the altered state to commit another crime severely compounds the penalty. Anchoress 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original posts (the following, down to the line, - is what we are discussing) 

message: :Drugging people is illegal, and drugging people in order to make them sexually compliant is considered rape (in the countries I'm familiar with, including the United States).  See date rape and date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has injection of parasites been called drugging? Also drugging is not called rape over here. Like when I went to have a tooth extracted, I was not raped as far as I know 8-?--Light current 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's giving someone with something, without their consent, that alters their mood to make them more sexually complaint that makes it rape.  Read date rape drug. -- SCZenz 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alcohol?--Light current 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our article on date rape, alcohol is the most common drug used in rapes. -- SCZenz 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So?--Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that administering drugs without consent is probably illegal in most countries. But administering drugs is not equivalent to rape or any other crime. --Light current 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said it was, LC.  You're creating an argument where one doesn't exist.  Given the seriousness of the subject matter, I think creating such an argument is most unpleasant.  Can you please leave this subject alone? -- SCZenz 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt start the argument. You did. Your post implies that admiinstering of any substance that dulls the senses is equivalent to rape. It plainly is not 8-)--Light current 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If I inject some of form parasite into an unwilling women" - That sentence ends the argument, LC. The questioner is asking for (hypothetically or not) date rape drug advice, and making jokes about it is not acceptable here or anywhere. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the page on the substance in question, it is not described as a date rape drug. According to the pages descriiption it acts more like an aphrodisiac.--Light current 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: GHB can be used for medical purposes as well. What is important is the way it is administered and the obvious intent to commit a crime by the OP. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know the OP was intending a crime? (Apart from the injection which is of course a crime which I do not condone in any way shape or form) BTW whats GHB? Were we talking about that?--Light current 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions (not answers) to original posts (should have been here in 1st place.). 

message: I agree, in general, that reactions to the post (and to answers) should've been here rather than the ref desk page, and I applaud that LC aknowledges that and wants to discuss it.  However, I think the first things Anchoress and I said were both attempts to answer the question.  The original IP asked if he would go to jail, and we were explaining that 'administering a noxious substance' (as Anchoress clarified) is a criminal act.  I meant to say that doing this for the purpose of having sex with the victim would be rape, which I feel was the implication of the original question; Anchoress certainly said it better than I did, though. -- SCZenz 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone feels that their post is in the wrong section, please move it 8-)--Light current 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on LC's categorization above 

message: This comment was added just as I was re-removing the section we've been discussing.  (Note that I re-removed it because THB was under the impression that it was removed by accident and re-added it.  I've now invited him to join this discussion rather than continuing this disappointingly-protracted edit war.)  Anyway, the comment was:  -- SCZenz
* This question is closed. The question is trollish and is requesting advise on how to commit a crime... and no more information is needed in any case. ---J.S (T/C) 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict 

message: I've deleted this comment after asking the poster about it and getting no response.  If anyone has any problems with this please speak up here.  Suicide is not a joking matter.  The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that the statement is true, in which case it's only a horribly inappropriate forum.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed. "So, how sly can I get while making personal attacks" is not the sort of game we play on the RD. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal was appropriate, in my opinion. Why did you leave the substitute link Grossly inappropriate comment deleted? Do we want to draw attention to the post and to the fact that posts get removed at the reference desk? Or is it common policy to leave a track behind, besides the page's history, on the page itself when you remove posts? I'm genuinely curious and don't know. These aren't rhetorical questions. ---Sluzzelin 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been significant concerns raised by some of the regular responders about unilateral deletions of essentially any comments, partly because the RD pages are high enough traffic that it's fairly difficult to detect when a comment has been deleted.  Leaving a comment about a deleted comment is one idea that's been proposed to help address these concerns.  The point is not to draw attention to the post or to the fact that posts might get removed, but to help the poster figure out what happened.  It is not (and should not be) common to delete posts, so I don't think there's a "common policy".  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. ---Sluzzelin 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I found the relevant discussion now. Sorry, it's hard for me to keep track. ---Sluzzelin 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand why you'd feel the need to add the note. I try to stay out of this stuff as much as I can, since I have no desire to be attacked, but I once removed a personal attack on someone (and a really unhelpful comment) from the RD, adding a clear flag of what I had done and why in the edit history. It was reverted and called vandalism, as well as deletionist :-S Skittle 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in 100% agreement.  Suicide ain't funny, and Wikipedia isn't a playground or a place to make obnoxious jokes at each other.  If LC really knows someone who is suicidal, I wholeheartedly hope that he finds an appropriate way to get help for that person, and I will personally do anything I can to assist him... but I doubt very much that that's what he meant. -- SCZenz 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sorry I havent responded in the few microseconds it has taken for this thread to emerge. I have been out with friends who gathered together to mourn the death of a mutual friend and a close friend of mine. I hope this has not caused the community too much trouble 8-((--Light current 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? Im sure a few editors (even I) have felt suicidal at times. THerfore the statement was correct.--Light current 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then go to a psychiatrist; your comment sounded a lot like an attempt to subtly belittle others. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should get your hearing or eyesight tested as you are seeing or hearing things that are not there. Abit like some other editors 8-)--Light current 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, since human beings are also animals, the response was entirely accurate. As to appropriateness, there will always be some comments that upset some people. I get upset and offended (sometimes grossly) by lots of comments here but I dont go whining an whinging about it! 8-)--Light current 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree and did not mean to imply there was any reluctance on LC's part.  This is actually one issue I have with the proposed rule involving consensual deletions.  Certainly no one is around 24x7.  As far as I can tell LC had logged off for the day (evening his time, I think).  I am at this point choosing to believe he would have agreed to remove it.  I removed it since I suspect I would have done so even if he'd refused (so, yes, I thought we couldn't afford to leave it up any longer).  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's important to explain these things, because some users (LC included) are especially sensitive to the idea that requesting removal is duplicitous if the response isn't listened to or if removal happens befor there is a response.  I don't think that viewpoint is accurate, but if we do go ahead and delete something after asking then explanation helps avoid bad feelings. -- SCZenz 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record it's Lc, not LC. I don't know if makes any real difference but it at least acknowledges his preferred WP name style.  --hydnjo talk 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IM not really fussy. I get called a lot worse!! 8-)--Light current 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a game 

message: I would like to note that there is no evidence that LC saw Rick's request before the comment was deleted.  I'm not saying that removing this particular comment required feedback from the poster—it is in extremely poor taste, and entirely without relevance to the question.  I'd have no objection to you saying that you didn't think we could afford to leave it up any longer... but certainly it's not LC's fault he hadn't replied yet, and I think Rick's post above could have made that clearer. -- SCZenz 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and did not mean to imply there was any reluctance on LC's part.  This is actually one issue I have with the proposed rule involving consensual deletions.  Certainly no one is around 24x7.  As far as I can tell LC had logged off for the day (evening his time, I think).  I am at this point choosing to believe he would have agreed to remove it.  I removed it since I suspect I would have done so even if he'd refused (so, yes, I thought we couldn't afford to leave it up any longer).  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's important to explain these things, because some users (LC included) are especially sensitive to the idea that requesting removal is duplicitous if the response isn't listened to or if removal happens befor there is a response.  I don't think that viewpoint is accurate, but if we do go ahead and delete something after asking then explanation helps avoid bad feelings. -- SCZenz 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record it's Lc, not LC. I don't know if makes any real difference but it at least acknowledges his preferred WP name style.  --hydnjo talk 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IM not really fussy. I get called a lot worse!! 8-)--Light current 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing time for comments 

message: Hi, I just wanted to note that I changed a heading which was irrelevant to the question asked below it, and also removed some meta-discussion about that heading.  I'd say that, in general, we shouldn't let irrelevant headings distract us from questions, and that we should change them without worrying about it very much. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a discussion on just this issue, and decided that you shouldn't change the orginal heading, as it may be used as a search term, but may add a more descriptive title afterwards, in parens. StuRat 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the title is deliberately irrelevant, or trolling (like the recent "an infinite rod in my pants," which I shortened to "an infinite rod"), my sympathy is limited.  I don't think people who give blatantly un-descriptive titles do so by accident, and if they do I don't expect they'd know to use them as a search term. -- SCZenz 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we are that worried about a trollish title being searched for at some future time then let the trollish title (in this case: Yes, I like cheese) be put in parens and not a legitimate title such as: Painful but nonlethal stabbing. Deleting the trollish title entirely (as you have done) would however be my first choice, we don't need to be mocked in this manner.  --hydnjo talk 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I like cheese too. Or is that not relevant ATM? 8-)--Light current 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading change 

message: It would appear the the sustained action by admins has indeed reduced the number of answers (both appropriate and inappropriate) given on the RDs and therefore the Admin strategy has succeeded. This is not surprising since the main RD respondents have been tied up fighting their corner here and elsewhere. Perhaps this was the Admin strategy all along! Clever! --Light current 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind being specific with who you believe to be involved in this conspiracy? As it is, it is nothing more than an attack by insinuation with very little constructive value. Rockpocket 05:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes--Light current 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lc, do you have any evidence that questions aren't being answered well because of a decline in the number of posts? -- SCZenz 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCZ allow me (Lc is busy in the lobby photographing Elvis). It's obvious that there must be a conspiracy going on which is being sponsored by the cabalista. Why else would there be such a "sustained action by admins" in order to cause a  "reduced the number of answers". The jig is up, we all know now!  --hydnjo talk 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Rockpocket, everybody except the three no, four no, five no, six, no,five no, four like we said three are definitely involved, every one of them (except the three).  --hydnjo talk 06:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise ... -- Rick Block (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll Ive just been accused of being silly above, but this is stupid. Also I never accused anyone of consipary.--Light current 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ..."the sustained action by admins has indeed reduced the number of answers..." sure sounds like a conspiracy to me.  --hydnjo talk 06:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see very little point in continuing to post on the newly censored RDS 8-((--Light current 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong Lc, when you or anyone sees censorship you or they should speak up, I know that I will. --hydnjo talk 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin strategy succeeded? 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Questions like "How moons does Jupiter have?" come up all the time at WP:HD.  If you think it's a stupid question that can be answered by reading a dreadfully obvious article, either politely point them at the right article or just let somebody else respond.  I sometimes use a very mild snark, like "You do realize this is an encyclopedia?  Please see the article on Jupiter.", but this is a little dangerous since comments like this can quickly snowball into full fledged WP:BITEs.  I think the best approach is to omit any snarkiness and simply point them at the right article, e.g. "Please see the article on Jupiter." -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Rick. Many come to the RD expecting that it behaves like a super-search engine but we seem to not even convince a fair number of them to even type four tildes. Many of these first timers could use a bit of hand holding and encouragement not a reading assignment. Each OP needs to be responded to in an individual way, we're going to be wrong sometimes but at least we have given the OP some thought before declaring that "we don't do homework" or read this or that. I've been remiss at times by giving the stock "Have you read... " and then finding that the link (our article) was deficient with regards to the question. Any RD volunteer who's goal is to plow though as many questions as possible and be first-up as well runs the risk of providing an inadequate response which is worse than no response at all. --hydnjo talk 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you.  I think it's paramount for each of us to remember how many others there are working on the RD; if I personally don't have the time or inclination to give a quality answer, it's a good bet that if I leave it alone then someone else will.  -- SCZenz 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to lazy OPs