Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

RefDeskBot Archives: Caution

Just a couple of things to look out for to ensure that the archiving goes through with smoothly. There are a couple things that will confuse the bot at the moment, but they're easy to prevent if we're paying attention.

  1. Make sure every question has a proper title.
    Do not allow non-titled text to sneak in below the date header. If somebody adds a question without a title tag, give it one. Not doing so will currently make the archives pretty messy.
  2. Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. = November 13 =, just to be on the safe side.
  3. Do not change the number of days transcluded, or move around the links to the transcluded pages. If you want to suggest an extension or shortening of the transclusion time, talk to Martin so that the bot doesn't get confused again.
  4. Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
  5. Add <nowiki></nowiki> tags or codify HTML/scripts in article titles to keep the archive indexes from screwing up. Normal Wikilinks are OK.

If a couple people keep an eye out for these things there should be no problems : )!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a date with no questions (only very seldom on the /Math desk)? I've been adding a comment just in case. --hydnjo talk 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... should be OK; the bot will probably just create a transcluded page with only the date header, though the index might screw up. It might be best to play it safe until we can ask Martin and make sure, but you can always just let it happen and see if it screws up or not; the bot isn't going to crash or anything, at the very worst it will just screw up the archives for that day, which won't be a big deal if there are none!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - sorry for my inactivity :) I think I've found the reason for that problem a few days ago, though freshgavin's points above are all still very important. The bot will accept =November 13= and = November 13 = - nothing else! The wrong date header, or the wrong number of transcluded pages will cause the bot to fail to archive anything that it hasn't already done - this is some behavoir that I'll look into improving, so it only fails on the bad desk. For the problem with no questions - I'm happy to report that there isn't one! The bot just takes all the text from the start of one date header to the start of the next, so the amount of text there makes no difference to it (thankfully ;)). Thanks - Martinp23 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing archived responses

If I look up something in the archived responses and find an erroneous response, or feel that an additional response would clarify or improve the quality, is it possible and or allowed to add something? Edison 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Note: This page is 257 kilobytes long

Time for another talk page archive by the looks of it--71.247.105.54 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • And in the last 12 hours since it was archived, it's already jumped back up to 139 kilobytes, we'll be ready for another archive by the end of the weekend--71.247.105.54 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont like what you have written, so Im going to delete it

To allow any one person to decide what "might possibly be offensive to some potential reader somewhere" and allow to them to remove it (except in clear cases of WP:BITE, WP:CIVILITY etc) is in my opinion the start of individual CENSORSHIP. This would be the end of WP IMO 8-(.--Light current 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes community pressure can be achieved by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT. --hydnjo talk 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT. --hydnjo talk 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Whats DFTT? Nothing under D in link! Also what happens if two or more people are being silly with each other at the same time? 8-)--Light current 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then, silliness abounds. I'll start the well, you know, the ignoring for now just to see what happens. --hydnjo talk 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I dont mind! And I wont hold it against you! Not that I admit being a t**** or a disruptor. 8-))--Light current 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
DFTT - Don't feed the trolls. --Salix alba (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes thanks I did find it 8-)--Light current 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Censorship is a red herring here. You have no free speech rights on Wikipedia, except insofar as they serve the goals of the wiki. -- SCZenz 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"You have no free speech rights here?" Be prepared to be assimilated into the Wiki. Resistance is futile. Edison 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont like what you have written, but I'm not going to delete it

Neither am I unless it violates existing policy OR I can get someone else to agree rthat its not acceptable! 8-)--Light current 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I started this section but was remiss in that I didn't add context immediately below the header. As a result, the purpose for which I added the header can and has been misunderstood so I'll add my intent.

This is a talk page and as such is subject to the talk page guideline of "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." I think however, that the guideline should not apply strictly to this particular talk page as it is not related to an article and am proposing that the guideline be interpreted more liberally here on this page. And further, as I have stated in the previous section, irrelevant or "silly" commentary should be ignored rather than debated at length. I'm definitely not suggesting that the RD itself be immune to the deletion of inappropriate comments. Just the opposite, because of the public face of the RD I feel that we should be quite strict about deleting inappropriate material there. --hydnjo talk 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Seagulls

Non-serious questions about seagulls are no longer funny. They are vandalism, and should be reverted on sight. JBKramer 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I assume this was triggered by the (currently deleted) question on the Science RD about the placement of seagulls' eyes. I see you placed several notices on the anon contributor's talk page about this, but when he responded on your talk page, you didn't really explain your deletion, you just described the question as "idiotic". Taken in isolation, it looks like a serious question to me - certainly not idiotic. Yes, I know there is a history of "odd" seagull-related questions and answers on the Science RD - but labelling this particular question as "vandalism" seems a bit extreme to me. Is it possible that in this instance you are over-reacting ? Gandalf61 13:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No. This is a continuation of the seagull inside joke. Occham's razor. JBKramer 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And let's be clear - brand new users don't know how to read edit summaries. This one does. I don't know or care who is behind this most recent stupid gull question, but it needs to be nipped in the bud. JBKramer 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I hate bloody seagulls too and anything to do with them 8-(. However this is a serious question from a person who deserves an answer. Our resident seagull expert (Kurt) will be along shortly to do just that! 8-)--Light current 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It was NOT a serious question, and it did NOT deserve an answer. Serious questions are NOT asked about gulls, and they are NOT asked by people that are reading edit summaries and know advanced wikipedia concepts like "revert", and "vandalism," but have no edit history. Is this hard for you to understand? JBKramer 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you know what is serious and what isnt. Can you read peoples minds? Pllease do not remove posts without agreement as to their undesirability on these pages. Thanks1 8-)--Light current 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I will edit the reference desk with the intention of having a useful and usable encyclopedia, not to preserve process fetishism. Further gull questions from that IP address will be shot on sight. Future gull questions will also likley be shot on sight. Reasonable editors to this encyclopedia, whom have been driven away from the RD by editors who like lolgull questions will return, if we allow them. This is not up for debate. JBKramer 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm! Do you think that is wise? 8-)--Light current 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a dynamic IP. I've been around WP for ages but I've never really contributed enough weighty content to think about registering (I mainly go around reading stuff I'm interested in and correcting small errors that I find). As I've already explained to you, I was not attempting to vandalize or disrupt. I was watching the gulls from my window this morning and the question came into my head. If I knew what a fuss this was going to create, I wouldn't even have bothered. Thanks to all the people who've supplied serious answers. I really do appreciate it. --84.68.125.122 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Not. Fooling. Anyone. JBKramer 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've explained my position and I don't see the need to do so any further. Anyone reading this is free to make up their own minds about my intentions for posting my question. I feel that you are not following the policies at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and that TBH, you are bang out of order. I'm not going to be drawn into a flame war over this. --84.68.125.122 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
JBKramer, starting a topic on this talk page and then saying "this is not up for debate" could seem a little inconsistent, perhaps ? Anyway, if the anon contributor really is trying to make a point instead of asking a genuine question, as you seem to suspect, then you have given them exactly what they wanted. Gandalf61 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Their point was to have a little laugh about their inside joke again. I don't see any laughing, do you? Also, before anyone gets the "just an innocent gull question" look on their face - 84.68.216.184 (talk • contribs). JBKramer 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All the same dynamic ISP. JBKramer 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those were all my questions. What's your point? I love seagulls and I want to know as much as I can about them and I would quite like to own one as a pet, so I was asking in the place where I thought I could get some answers. --84.68.125.122 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find answers to all of your future gull related questions at User Talk:Kurt Shaped Box. They are no longer appropriate here. If KSB is unable to answer your gull related questions, I will answer them on my talk page. JBKramer 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed a strong trend on Wikipedia, which is taking the word 'vandalism' and making into something quite seperate from its classical meaning.
Vandalism, in the original sense, was about defying the Roman Empire's rules and regulations. Defying the guidelines and principles of Wikipedia should not be called vandalism as such. It is merely inappropriate editing. Sometimes, inappropriate editing will indeed be vandalistic; but please be cautious that you do not use the word to accuse someone you don't approve of in an inappropriate manner, or you yourself might be called a 'vandal', though it will still be improper usage.
Putting a string of profanity into the George W. Bush article is clearly vandalism. Writing about seagulls at the help desk is merely silly. Don't call someone a vandal if they are only being silly! Tell them to get their act together, yes, but with the right words!


Deleting questions as you see fit isn't your prerogative. Good questions have value regardless of the OP's intent. --frothT C 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions about gulls are not good questions anymore, and it is my perrogative. JBKramer 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, JBKramer, I don't think it is your prerogative (or anyone else's) to arbitralily delete questions from the RDs just because you don't like them. The question did not break any RD rules. It was a sensible question which just happened to be about seagulls. Gandalf61 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If we were all given free reign to exercise our so called prerogatives of deleting anything we didnt like, there would be very little of WP left! Im sure all your stuff would go quite quickly 8-)--Light current 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be best if people were to stay cool. Take a deep breath everyone, and remember to assume good faith. — QuantumEleven 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If the string of silly questions had been about, say, cucumbers (or masks, or whatever) instead of seagulls, then would someone be declaring that "THERE SHALL BE NO QUESTION ABOUT CUCUMBERS (or masks, or whatever) BECAUSE THEY ARE INHERENTLY SILLY!" and then bite the head off an innocent newbie who posts a question about the same subject? Things must be kept in perspective, and individual questions should be judged on their own merits. Deletion should be the exception, not the rule. A warning to a user who posts the same or similar question repeatedly as a form of trolling and disruptive editing could be appropriate, since the humor wears off rather quickly and becomes annoyance. Edison 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Seems an interesting idea. After how many posts would we post this warning to desist?--Light current 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Three in all of history is not too many. One a day is too many. The max number which does not seem lke trolling will likely be in between and is pretty subjective. We must also allow for the child who is infatuated with a subject; you can't always judge the age and responsibility of an editor easily. Deletion messages and postings to the user's page should always be civil and be worded objectively and impartially. It would help to have a well-wordsmithed standard message 1 through say 3 to be posted if someone decides to delete a question which appears to be trolling or failed attempts at humor. Edison 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral censorship

It seems we have a new censor on board who thinks he can delete anything he wants! I dont think he can! 8-(--Light current 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just silly. Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of DFTT. --hydnjo talk 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What? My statement is silly or the action of censorship is silly? 8-)--Light current 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Light current may be referring to this - the deletion of a serious, but possibly misguided, question and an appropriate response. Nothing to do with seagulls. Gandalf61 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that true Lc? I assumed perhaps wrongly that you were bringing up the seagull dispute in this section.--hydnjo talk 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that one of 'em! 8-(. Hes not actually asking for advice just info on what it might have been.--Light current 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Diagnoses expose Wikipedia to legal liability - review Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer for why we may not diagnose a condition you say you have had or do have. JBKramer 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that I followed up the deletion of that question and repsonse with a message to that users talk page, which he recieved, saying that we don't give medical diagnoses, because we don't, ever. This, like deleting gull questions, is not up for debate - but this one is not up for debate for obvious legal reasons. JBKramer 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
People who dont debate usually get steamrollered here 8-)--Light current 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a debate because it's already a decided question. Got a problem with the gulls? Get a consensus of users (not reference desk hangerouters) that I'm wrong to delete it, or get me blocked for deleting them, and I'll stop. If you try to solicit opinion RE the gulls, I might present my case there. Got a problem with the medical opinions? Get the Foundation, Arbcom or Jimbo to stop me, because nothing else will. JBKramer 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because a question is inappropriate doesn't mean we should delete it. On medical questions, for example, we can still say "That sounds serious, you'd better see a doctor immediately". Nobody will get sued for that advice, and it may even save a life. StuRat 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I placed that information on the experienced users talk page after deleting the question. JBKramer 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to remove inappropriate questions of this sort; it's better, as StuRat says, to answer them appropriately. In this case, that means saying "see a doctor" and giving no speculation. If there were speculation, I would strongly support removing it. -- SCZenz 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed--Light current 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Leaving it in a public place invites speculation. Disapearing it removes the impetitus for someone who dosen't know not to speculate to do so. JBKramer 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Just chill right down Billy, its not that important! 8-)--Light current 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
JBKramer looks chilled to me. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No I said chill. Dont become ice cold! 8-)--Light current 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I think we should be able to expect question-answerers to follow the rules. If the questioner were a new user, and in particular were anonymous, leaving the question up would be the best thing to do. Since it was an experienced user, though, your action seems sensible enough to me. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed 140 kilobytes worth of discussion page to Archive 14

The size of this talk page was really getting out of control--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

refdeskbot

Surely the current activity of refdeskbot is wrong.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartinp23&diff=88532501&oldid=88528654

Currently because of this bot changes to discussions on the main page do not appear in the edit history. The bot operator admits other users have 'complained' and says it would be a simple matter to fix. However he says he requires consensus before making any changes to the bots behaviour and suggested trying here. (See User talk:87.102.21.223)

(Personally I note that the bot is operating incorrectly and should be stopped, but as it is only a minor niggle I should try the correct polite methods first before becoming angry.)

So please help. Thank you.87.102.21.223 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By way of background, the previous discussion is archived here. I'd like to make it clear at this point that the bot is not malfunctioning, and is working perfectly as it has been coded (by myself, to the specifications given to me :)). Of course, the reason that the edits to the archives don't appear on the main apge history is that the edit is not beng made there, but on the archive page which is transcluded onto the main desk. This sort of problem with watching discussions is somethat similar to the above cited coversation (in the part of the bot behaviour it address) but is completely different in operation (previous proposal was to have transcluded archive pages from day one, this is to only move content off the main page and into archive pages after the full 7 or 4 days (depending on desk) - of course, this gives the stiuation that existed before the bot!). Just chipping in, based on my role as the bot operator. Martinp23 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely the archives should be for inactive discussions, (and any points made about previously inactive discussions should be made on the current talk page - with a link to the previous thread) - as it stands the archives contain still active discussions. This makes no sense. I understand the the bot is not malfunctioning as such - my view that the function it has been given is wrong. I think I understand that you know what the solution would be - it's obvious isn't it. (that is archive after 4 days I think and no transclusion). Could you give a link to who or whatever gave you the specifications so I can go and reason with them. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.21.190 (talk • contribs).
Any activity on the archive pages is well out of control of the bot. I don't see what you are complaining about. It also clearly states at the top of every archive page that new questions should be asked on the current page. I guess I should clarify that all discussion should be moved to the current page, but that doesn't really make sense because we don't allow starting threads without a question. There's no problem with continuing discussions after the question has been archived. In fact, the archive pages have always encouraged users to answer questions that weren't properly solved even after they were archived. That way any user to search the archives for an answer may come across it in the future.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Arranged marriage questions

The sections at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Arranged marriage and Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous#Arranged Marriage got a bit too chatty rather than factual in their responses, as the questioner himself noted. If a question appears to be clear trolling, it can be removed or ignored; if it's possible trolling, feel free to ignore it. But in neither case should the question be used as an excuse to have fun with the questioner. -- SCZenz 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz. If the questioner is serious then let's not screw around with him, please give a serious answer or just move along. If on the other hand you feel that it is a trollish question then I suggest that also you just move along; please don't feed the trolls. --hydnjo talk 00:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes but: If you believe its serious and give an answer, but it turns out to be a troll, then you have fed the troll! Game over. 9-)--Light current 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose, but at least we're trying (aren't we?). --hydnjo talk 04:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And you're better off feeding it than becoming one.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If those are the only choices then, for sure! But can't we avoid both? --hydnjo talk 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Meaning??--Light current 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
LC: "Do not feed the trolls" definitely stands below the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which states that we should "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary." If there's no clear evidence that someone's a troll, and you help them, and it turns out they were a troll, you still did the right thing. -- SCZenz 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out the gaping hole in the DNFTT approach! BTW I noticed that there hase been a lot of 'trumping' going on lately. Ie certain opinions trump other opinions 8-( --Light current 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a gaping hole, but I certainly agree that DNFTT must be applied with discretion. See Wikipedia:What is a troll#Bad faith, which says (among other things) basically what I said earlier. -- SCZenz 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the Devil's advocate always a troll?--Light current 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Day

Has anyone else noticed but all the QAs for November 18 seem to have been excised. I'm not quite sure what to do about this, as I assume any reversion would delete all that has been added since? Clio the Muse 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

French politics question disapeared

Where did the question about who would win the French election go? I think the title was something like Royal vs. Sarkozy vs. LePen. Are we not supposed to talk politics because these discussion systematically turn into wars? I can't find a trace of it. Thank you Keria 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could your problem possibly be related to the question immediately above? If you asked on the 18th, it should be restored now. We have no problem with you talking politics : ).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, yes, I couldn't remember which date it was asked on. Just to clarify, I didn't ask the question, I was just looking forward to the answer.
Thank you Keria 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny answers

I remember seing a discussion on this page about whether we should keep or remove the funny (sarcastic ?) answers. Can someone tell me what the outcome was ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No outcome. Eight archives of discussion.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed there was no consensus, though of course we all agree that funny/sarcastic isn't a bad thing. Nevertheless, I do plan to remove comments that are excessively far off-topic or unnecessarily insulting to new users. -- SCZenz 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes and because I dont remember you being elected as sole arbiter of good taste, I will revert it if I see fit ! 8-(--Light current 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the person who answers can put a mark (may be a smiley?), to indicate that it is not a serious answer. I am not sure if this suggestion has been considered (and discarded :-) )-- WikiCheng | Talk 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are those answers that are just funny, and those which are funny, but also answer the question. And some responses are so obviously an attempt at humor, it would be silly to mark them as silly. StuRat 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I always indicate my seriousness 8-|--Light current 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
See also Jack Dee--Light current 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was an attempt to make theanswer not sound rude or serious. It is possible that a naive questioner will take a funny answer to be serious. On the other hand, if the question is Why is the black sea called black sea ?, the answer Because someone named it black sea would be taken to be rude, even if the answerer meant it to be funny. -- WikiCheng | Talk 08:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

How do I propose this to be implemented? Is there a page for this? -- WikiCheng | Talk 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ironically, the addition of such a symbol will probably render all funny responses less funny, or possibly unfunny. Much like the way that lots of exclamation marks make astonishing things seem more mundane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And funny things less funny. And unfunny things very annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Dweller 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. A smiley at the end of a funnly line does not make it any less funny. May be a symbol at the beginning (indicating that what follows is supposed to be funny) does. I suppose that a smiley at the end of the answer should serve the purpose ? -- WikiCheng | Talk 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, I thought that a small smiley placed by the person who answers wouldn't hurt. After all, nobody else but the answerer decides if the answer is supposed to be serious one or a funny one. But if you think that this is not necessary, let us not have it -- WikiCheng | Talk 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The average questioner will likely not be falling down laughing as editors try to top one another with funny answers to his question. Imagine if two or 3 RLRDL's (Real Life Reference Desk Librarians) turned your sincere question into a subject of their humor traded back and forth like an unfunny TV Celebrity Roast. On the other hand, there are experts who contribute their time for this unpaid service which adds value to the Wikipedia project. A little camaraderie is perhaps their only compensation for perhaps $100 per day of donated expertise. It is more acceptable if the question is well answered first, and if the humor is not in the nature of poking fun at the naivete of the questioner. Such meanness or sarcasm hurts Wikipedia and drives off newbies, and might well be deleted. Edison 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Impolite questioners

Please refer Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#The_Black_Sea. Can we have a better way of dealing with impolite questioners ? All of us are wasting our time in either admonishing the questioner or arguing among ourselves. I suggest that we put a one line (or a template?) stating something likeYour question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. As we don't like to answer such questions, this is the end of this discussion. Let us keep quite after this, unless ofcourse either the questioner rephrases his question or some kind hearted wikipedian answers the question in spite of the rudeness. -- WikiCheng | Talk 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think people would answer it anyway, making the threat meaningless. StuRat 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Answering in a rude way also provokes rudeness. –mysid☎ 09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the proposed template is (I presume) also to avoid an escalation of provoked rudeness. While the questioner was rude, the first reply given may also have come across as somewhat unpleasant and thereby triggered the reaction. Believe it or not, the use of the word "hell" is consider profanity by some. What about a simple polite admonishment without stated penalty, something along the lines of: Please help to keep the reference desks to be welcoming places. Rudeness is not considered acceptable. The librarians working to answer the questions are all volunteers. Maybe also sprinkle in some soothing fragrances or such.  --LambiamTalk 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with likeYour question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. As we don't like to answer such questions, this is the end of this discussion. If you wish to re-ask the question please be polite. They can obviously ask again in a new section if they wish. As for the 'black sea case' the first reply was abrupt - but did give a link to the page. We are not here to write essays. This may be rude but the reply just confirms the initial impression of the questioner ie "Do my homework for me, I'm a lazy little brat".etc. Personally I'm sick of even attempting to excuse such people.87.102.36.82 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Lambiam's wording to Wikicheng's. Wikicheng's version claims to speak on behalf of all RD users (we don't like to answer such questions) and prescribes how other RD users should behave towards the questioner (this is the end of this discussion); both of these attributes are, in my opinion, unhelpful. Even better is not to have a template, but to respond to each rude questioner individually - templates encorage reflex reactions. Gandalf61 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
copied from the RD/S:
This would seem appropriate to describe all comments after the forth one (by JBKramer).--hydnjo talk 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) hydnjo talk 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would ask your question in a polite manner, we may be able to help you!

Would this be any good?--Light current 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty simple really, if you don't care for the manners of the questioner then just move on. Your attempts to arbitrate manners to the many that will visit here will do as much good as giving the finger to a rude motorist does in reducing the number of rude motorists. Sometimes it's best all around to just smile at the rudeness, be thankful that you're above all that and move on. --hydnjo talk 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. IMO questions fall into two categories, v/v rudeness: Clear trolling, such as, "I hear you fucking retards don't have anything better to do than tell me how to give my girlfriend 20 orgasms an hour.", which should be either ignored or deleted, and all the rest, which, no matter how they are worded, we should either answer in good faith, or skip (for whatever reason - we don't know the answer, we don't like the way the question was asked, or whatever). Anchoress 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ignoring such rudeness is the best way to deal with them. But do we ignore ? Someone is bound to reply to a rude comment / question and someone else feels like adding to it (moral support ?). After sometime, we have many comments and the questioner must be enjoying loking at them. My suggestion is to put a standard reply (that is why I suggested a template) after which everyone is expected to refrain from retaliating. But if somebody wants to answer the question in good faith, I am all for it. Taking all suggestions, can we make it Your question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. You are not likely to get any more answers. If you would ask your question in a polite manner, we may be able to help you!. In any case, this will not prevent the guy from re-asking the question nicely, getting an answer and then thanking with a I still got the answer I wanted from you f!@$ing b@$%^&*s... -- :-) WikiCheng | Talk 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiCheng please, there is no "system" to deal with impoliteness or rudeness that will benefit the RD. Adding layers of bureaucratic meddling will always be controversial and lead to unnecessary debate whereas ignoring any question that you dislike will not. We cannot and should not allow this very public face of WP to end up as either seen as pedantic or worse, made up of intrawiki squabblers. We've enough of that already. Please reread Anchoress' reply just above yours, it is as succinct as can be about this matter. There is zero energy required on any of our parts in overlooking rather than overseeing a question.
There is however something that we could all pitch-in and help with for the common good. Whenever we see an unsigned question, add the {{unsigned|username or ip}}template. This allows the rest of us to be one click away from information that helps in determining the appropriate response to an unsigned inquiry.
Oh, and please don't try to standardize the folks who are volunteering their time and effort to be helpful when help is genuinely requested. Give us at least in your mind, the ability on our part to reckon the differences between the obvious troll-baiters from the homeworkers from the genuine but uninformed from the "perfect" questioners; we usually know who's who all by ourselves. Please refrain from adding unnecessary overhead to our efforts to be a gateway for first-timers who are sincere but inarticulate. Our response in such cases is after all their first gauge about this project and a considered response (rather than a template) may make all the difference as to whether we gain a contributor or a detractor.
We really don't need a template for rudeness, a smiley for a joking response, a star for a "good" question, a ten section RD or any other substitutes for common sense. I do know the frustration of some who come aboard and feel that geesh - this place is really screwed up and I know just how to fix it. But please, just hang around a bit longer in order to experience the richness and diversity of it all; there are folks popping in and out all the time and you'll see that we have a pretty good handle on things without formality. Not to say that there aren't some rough edges but rather to say that discussion amongst ouselves has had positive results without formal stuff. --hydnjo talk 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK back to you WC.  :-) --hydnjo talk 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about a film

I have a question about a film. Should it be asked here or on the humanities section?

--Meno25 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Humanities would probably be best, and post to the project page, not the talk page of that section. Good luck! Anchoress 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

keeping the reference desk factual

Moved from the main reference desk and, partly, from THB's talk page. This is in regard to the question on the humanities desk about unjust laws (specifically, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Modern_day_unjust_laws,_institutions,_or_corporations_in_the_United_States?)

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

We have to be more accepting of opinion, as many fields in the humanities, language, and even soft sciences don't lend themselves to strictly factual answers. For example, the precise shades of meanings of words can't be documented scientifically. StuRat 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that exactly? 8-)--Light current 15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Escorts

(Discussion moved from project space Natgoo 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

So this page is now to be used for giving advice on obtaining the services of prostitutes? A real class act. Clio the Muse 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's miscellaneous, isn't it? It doesn't fall into any of the other categories. Or were you suggesting restricting the content of questions here? Marnanel 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that there are questions which people should have the intelligence and sense of taste to ignore, if not remove altogether; and giving advice on escort services and prostitution falls among these. There are limits, even in your libertarian world; or at least I assume there are? Perhaps you would like to give advice on access to child pornography? Clio the Muse 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Clio, there's a method to my madness. I'm not going to address your indirect insults, but bear with me while I answer your queries.
First, I look at it like this: just as most parents would undoubtedly prefer their kids to get information about sex and drugs from them, I'd prefer for this guy to get his information about the sex trade from me (a sex-positive feminist with a lot of accurate information about sex work) than from one of the scumbag STD-infected serial philanderers on the escort review boards.
Second, the problem with judging people for answering questions on topics some people find morally reprehensible, is that such morality is completely relative. The 'child pornography' angle is a red herring, because it's illegal in every respect, unlike prostitution (in the English-speaking world, at least). But if we judged questions by their moral value, we'd be in a big fat mess, because it would introduce an unenforceable set of rules that would doubtless be used (as you have used them right now) to chastise good-faith editors for attempting to use the board for its stated purpose.
Third, it's a relatively legitimate question, possible to answer factually, asked in a neutral and correctly-worded way, and it happens to be in one of my areas of expertise. Therefore, IMO it's better to give a thorough, neutral and legitimate answer quickly, because that lessens the likelihood of the thread being taken over by the goofy chauvanists who love to have a yobbo party on these kinds of threads.
Fourth, consider that the OP (who may in fact have been a troll, as s/he was blocked for trolling shortly after posting) is - if s/he in fact asked the question in bad faith - getting more trollish glee out of your shrill protests than s/he got out of my factual answer.
And finally, if someone (you for instance) had decided this question was NOT legitimate, or was a poor use of the boards, and had deleted the thread (including my answer), I would not have protested, and I doubt anyone else would have.
--Anchoress 06:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have clearly touched a raw nerve, Anchoress. I, too, am a feminist, and I am only too well aware of the causes and, above all, the effects of prostitution, and the forms of slavery that now accompany it. I can see nothing in what I have written that is either insulting or shrill ( a term, if I were so minded, I might be tempted to call insulting); I merely said, as a general comment, that people should have the intelligence and good taste to avoid this kind of question. I am sorry that you have taken this personally. I for one will not, nor will I ever, delete any question: simply ignore those which deserve to be ignored. However, I bow to your superior knowledge in these sexual matters, and will do my best to see that our paths do not intersect in future. Clio the Muse 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually you haven't touched a raw nerve at all, Clio. But as to the insult, I was the only person who answered the OP, and you said that some people should have the sense and intelligence not to answer certain questions. The inescapable conclusion is that I, by answering the question, lacked sense and intelligence. And if I offended you with my characterisation of your response, I apologise. But I am certain that the OP, if s/he read your response, would characterise it thus. If you feel you need to stay out of my way for your own self-preservation, I won't try to dissuade you (you wouldn't be the first), but you certainly don't need to on my account. I am neither offended nor angered by anything you said in this thread, and I certainly don't bear any grudges or feel a need to maintain distance. Anchoress 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
My self-preservation? Despite your detached tone-and your denial-it's all too obvious that I have touched a raw nerve; I am truly sorry to have upset you in this fashion. However, I must confess that it was not just the fact that you replied at all that disturbed me, but the content of your reply. Some poor woman, who has managed to control her sense of disgust, is then to be sent packing by some creep because she does not meet his expectations. Now, that really is bad. And I am sorry, but I have to say this: for a woman to be giving such advice makes the whole sordid thing even worse in my estimation. Clio the Muse 09:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, well, I promise you that you haven't touched a nerve, and I ask you to believe me. I communicate in strong language that's often mistaken for emotionalism; just ask my boss! I've come to grips with him several times when he mistook my Vulcan for Klingon. (I'm serious, email me and I'll send you his info and you can ask him. It's really, really true about me). Anyways, I truly, sincerely am not hot about this issue, I'm not the least bit irritated or touchy, and again I'm sorry if my characterisation caused you offense. My other words I stand by (despite your disgust), because they were offered in good faith and based upon my personal experience. Peace. (I mean that, I'm not just saying it and I'm not being sarcastic). Anchoress 09:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Pax vobis. There are too few intelligent women here to risk a serious falling out. Clio the Muse 09:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to see questions deleted. Whether the question is in poor taste or not is....a matter of taste. It is also irrelevant. I also believe that when a troll asks an answerable question, it should be answered, and everyone moves on, seems easier than deleting it. Behind a trolling question is a lack of knowledge about the subject, and I don't think the reason for asking a question is relevant. (To be clear, I don't believe this particular question is trolling at all.) LIke I read on another website today, if someone doesn't like a particular post, there's a little "X" up in the corner of their browser and they can click on it. -THB 07:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A factual, neutral response to a question about a licit and legal service (in many parts of the world) is perfectly appropriate for the RD. Please stop insisting we share your offense, Clio - Anchoress handled the question very well. Natgoo 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not insisting that you, or anyone else, share my views on this or any other matter under debate. Try to think a little more clearly. Clio the Muse 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's how your comments, and your strawman of child pornography, read. I'm thinking clearly enough, thanks. Natgoo 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people are enraged by sexual questions while others are perfectly fine with them to me suggests that we need a Sexuality Ref Desk, which the more sensitive readers could then avoid. StuRat 12:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

a question about Dedicated servers

(question moved to WP:RD/C#a question about Dedicated servers)

Tarka the otter section removed

I removed the section on "Tarka the otter" from the Humanities reference desk. It seemed to be a clear-cut case of a question calling for opinions, which was in fact not possible to answer factually, and it was asked by a user familiar with the reference desk and its proper purpose. The responses were likewise all discussion, which is again not what the reference desk is for. If I missed something, and someone can argue that this discussion involved actual facts, I will apologize for my error. -- SCZenz 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz - there are other recent RD questions that call for opinions and cannot be answered with facts - for example "why are French women so much better-looking than English women" from Humanities RD Nov 25th. If you are going to take it on yourself to cleanse the RDs, I think you need to do it consistently. Gandalf61 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to do exactly that, and I've been trying to, but I had limited time over the holiday and I guess I missed that one. (I'll go back and look now.) Bear in mind that I'm only one person, trying to do the right thing as time permits—as with everything on Wikipedia, if you think I'm a good thing you're welcome to help me. -- SCZenz 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed. I'll try to survey the entire ref desk over the course of the day... but in general, if you see a problematic section I missed, you can bring it to my attention—or better yet, take care of it yourself! -- SCZenz 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
SCZenz - I won't be helping you in your clean-up campaign, as I don't happen to agree with your approach. However, my point was that if you are going to start a clean-up patrol on the RDs then you need to do it regularly and consistently, otherwise it could appear that you are acting in an arbitrary fashion and not treating all RD contributions on an equal footing. If you do not have time to patrol regularly yoruself, perhaps you should think about organising a rota. Gandalf61 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. It was question prompted by the mention of otters somwhere on RD. I wondered if anyone had anything positive to say about it, or whether others found it as boring as I did! Of course I could have phrased it as: What are the literary merits and demerits of the book 'tarka the otter'? Would that be removed? --Light current 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be an ok question. An even better question would be to ask for information on published criticism of the book. -- SCZenz 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and also, I think you should get agreement from somone else before removing stuff!--Light current 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SCZenz. The question is more suited to a chat site than a Reference Desk. --hydnjo talk 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there's consensus among Wikipedians that certain questions are inappropriate for the reference desk; it seems inefficient to get committee approval every time I act on that consensus. A better way, and the standard for Wikipedia, is to get consensus that I made a mistake afterwards; if people often agree that I screwed up, then I'll obviously change how I do things. -- SCZenz 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Im not suggesting committee approval. Im just suggesting that you get at least someone else to agree with you thet the (any) offending item should be removed. You may be surprised at who agrees! 8-)--Light current 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Lc, Are you perhaps suggesting that you'd delete your own question if it were deemed to be inappropriate for the RD? --hydnjo talk 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If two consenting editors agree, then it can be removed. If I was convinced by another editor that my post was not appropriate, I would remove it myself. I just dont like having a sole arbiter. 8-( --Light current 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you don't. However, in clear-cut cases it seems better to do the right thing promptly, and argue about it later if necessary; this is, after all, a wiki. -- SCZenz 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes one meaning of the word Wiki is 'quick'. But the other meaning is 'informal'--Light current 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly is it so critical to remove it quickly that this trumps any concerns about fairness ? Will the foundations of Wikipedia collapse if this question is left in for a few more hours ? StuRat 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "What are the literary merits and demerits of Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1?" a valid RD question??? -THB 07:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say so. But it sounds like homework 8-|--Light current 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic or otherwise useless content can be removed if some editor gets the urge to do so. This has been standard accepted practice for a long time, as far as I know. I agree with SCZenz that questions that can only be answered with opinion are one category of stuff we probably don't want to try to deal with here. (The reference desk is part of Wikipedia, after all.) Friday (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An advice question that I think might have been handled wrongly

I do not know if the reference desk community handled Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#sick dreams correctly. It seems to me that the question requested advice, and was responded to with personal opinions about what to do (including what was more or less medical advice) rather than facts. Any thoughts on how we could have handled this better? -- SCZenz 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly a medical question. But we could have treated it as one. Other homebrew recipies from peole who have solved this problem, I think are valid answers.--Light current 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not strictly a medical question, but borderline medical advice (e.g. to take specific chemicals to possibly help) was given. The point is, everyone gave what they thought should be done, and nobody pointed to any references or studies on the issue. Providing references is what we're about here, not providing advice. -- SCZenz 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Are vitamins classed as chemicals or drugs? I think this is a marginal case that could be looked at either way--Light current 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of dreams is nothing but opinion, so no strictly factual answer could be given. StuRat 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean you agree it should be removed?--Light current 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Me ? Heck no, I'm fine with opinions on the Ref Desk. StuRat 07:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So why cannnot SCZenz CZenz?--Light current 23:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful responses

The following is copied from RD/S and is an example of what we should not be doing, being unhelpful:

==Sticky notes==
What is the adhesive on sticky notes? X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Glue--Light current 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is far better to move on to another question if you can't be helpful. --hydnjo talk 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The link links to all the glues under the sun and as such the answer is helpful (but not necessarily complete). Also a quick and dirty answer is sometimes all a questioner needs and is better than no answer.--Light current 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In this case the questioner knows that it is some form of "glue" as he has used the word adhesive in the question. Your response seems uncaring, flippant and unhelpful. --hydnjo talk 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It may seem so to you. But thats your interpretation. Ask Mac what he feels.--Light current 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The person asking the question isn't the only one reading the page. We want the ref desk to appear welcoming to those with questions. -- SCZenz 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That just aint gonna happen. Some Q&A will always be misinterpreted by someone (Take Popping collar for instance). It appeared offensive to DirkVdM (hence his relpy I assume) but apparently was not intended to be.--Light current 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OH Jeez! Nos da!--Light current 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And good night to you as well. --hydnjo talk 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Photoshop Splice tool

I took this accidentally-unhelpful answer, and discussion thereof, out in order to make it easier for the question-asker to find the answer to his question. -- SCZenz 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Splice After looking see what you think. 8-)--Light current 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the link to Splice is precisely ZERO help in answering the question, and I find myself muttering "wtf?". --Tagishsimon (talk)
Yes well I shouldnt mutter too much. You may get locked up! Oh and BTW, what help is your statement to the OP?

In film technique or audio recording, splicing means to join the ends of two pieces of film or magnetic tape, for example, in editing.

--Light current 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Photoshop's "Splice" tool does not do that, nor is it a program used for film technique or audio recording. Aka your answer is still "precisely ZERO help in answering the question" as Tagishimon put it. --24.147.86.187 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So? It was still an attempt to help WP:AGF. How does criticising me help the OP?--Light current 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a not too gentle reminder to you that if you know damn-all about the question's subject matter, you should not waste the time of the questioner and the community by posting fatuous links, nor patronise them with a comment such as "after looking see what you think" after directing them to a place which will not in any way assist their thinking. Even charitably assuming your good faith in making the posting, you were inconsiderate in not pausing to consider that your ignorance disqualified you from answering. Show a little restraint please. (Oh. And your "Toys and Prams" question is a churlish riposte.) --Tagishsimon (talk)
Please do not post personal attacks WP:NPA. Also see WP:AGF--Light current 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not post CRAP answers on the RD. Remember that AGF goes on to say: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." You have yet to provide ANY explanation of your Splice edit. As normal, you're deploying dumb, and in context again patronising, bar-room lawyer arguments in the hope that we'll not get around to the substantive issue of your continued incontinent postings. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I believe the post in question has been removed from the RD, so there is no point in discussing it. Splice. The connection seems obvious [1]--Light current 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The DAB page had no information nor links which assisted in answering the question, yet your response suggests it would. Do you have such an insufficiency of honesty that you cannot admit that your answer was unhelpful? --Tagishsimon (talk)
IMHO the posts by Tagishsimon go far beyond what is needed or appropriate in response to an answer which was misguided: "Please do not post CRAP answers..", "As normal, you're deploying dumb..arguments," "..your continued incontinent postings." (definition of incontinent: unrestrained, unable to hold back, but also implies incapable of controlling excretory functions), ""Do you have such an insufficieny of honesty..." This is incivility per se and uncalled for on Wikipedia. Edison 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Then he/she needs to be warned about WP:NPA and from there as warranted. If we do not police our own problems then we should not complain when an admin does it for us. --Justanother 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of unwarranted attacks upon me by User:Tagishsimon. Im not sure what(s)he hopes to gain beyond simply harrassing me 8-(--Light current 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Place the appropriate warning template on the user's talk page. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace --Justanother 21:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Responses that reflect poorly on the RD

The following is an example from RD/S of an unhelpful response that reflects poorly on the RD:

==Castor bean==
I decide to eat a castor bean, will I die? X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
look it up--Light current 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That response is uncalled for. If you don't intend to be helpful then just move on to another question for which you can provide a helpful response, --hydnjo talk 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No Im sorry! I linked the word in the OPs post for the OP to look it up. So the response was helpful! Check the hist!
Anyway Mac is a regular RD editor and knows me. He's not a newbie!--Light current 03:42, 29 November 2006
That's such bollocks. In NO WAY did a link to the DAB splice assist in answering the question about the Splice Tool. That's the nub of the issue. But hey, go on. Explain EXACTLY how the link assisted. --Tagishsimon (talk)
The above convo is about castor bean. Please moderate your language-- its becoming quite offensive and aggressive. Thanks 8-|--Light current 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Then he knows how to look the Wikipedia article first. Thus telling him so is, once again, unhelpful. -- SCZenz 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Call it a gentle chiding then. Like what you are doing to me! 8-(--Light current 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, Mac isn't the only one that will read that particular Q&A. A newcomer could easily become intimidated by curt responses such as yours and be reluctant to post his own question fearing that it might be deemed "stupid". --hydnjo talk 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And further, you aught not be modifying a question as you did by wikilinking as it adds a layer of confusion for the rest of the readers. If you would like to wikilink a word then do so in your response. --hydnjo talk 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If I add a link to a question or title, I try to say that in my response: "Click on the link I added to the title to see our article." StuRat 11:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Msg received and understood.--Light current 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - I for one appreciate your candor. --hydnjo talk 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I aint got that sort of time. If Id put " Look at link". Is that curt or OK?--Light current 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Or to paraphrase, you don't give a flying fuck for the opinions of others on the RD and refuse to contemplate the possibility that you are out of line in providing demonstrably bollocks answers which make the RD look like its staffed by morons. That's a contemptable attitude.--Tagishsimon (talk)
Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks WP:NPA--Light current 17:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also one mans bollocks are another mans meatballs! 8-)--Light current 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Abnormal Psychology

(unindent)Question: is there a relationship with madness and the historical views of normality?

I am doing a course on Abnormal Psychology, and have started to do this particular assignment, and I need a clue as to what it is asking for, as Im not sure if I understand the question, and dont want to write the assignment to find its not what they wanted at all - can anyone give me a clue?? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kargus (talk • contribs) .[posted 14:59, 28 November 2006] (several responses skipped)

Or, you can take your assignment and your studies seriously, research on these works, read secondary materials to understand them better, and really learn rather than going for unsubstantiated rhetoric. Moonwalkerwiz 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How does the above response benefit the Reference Desk project and Wikipedia?Edison 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the Reference Desk

Recently, a concern has been raised about how the Reference Desk has become too humorous, and there have been contentions that certain items should be removed. Please see User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals for a proposal on this subject. User:SCZenz and I would like to attempt to garner a consensus on this topic. Do you think admins (or other editors) should remove inappropriate comments and/or threads from the Reference Desk? Please keep the discussion civil. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I try to avoid these pointless debates, but on this issue you have my full support. Some of the comments posted on the reference desk are both puerile and distasteful. The real aim, I suspect, is to turn a serious point of information gathering, guidance and dissemination into a joke. It's not a display of intelligence and wit; just stupidity and tittering schoolboy arrogance. Please, for the sake of the credibility of the reference desk, and for all those who wish to take it seriously-both users and contributors-, remove all fatuous comments at the quickest opportunity. Clio the Muse 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Zoe asked to keep it civil. You spend most of your comment on insulting people. So should it now be deleted? How would you feel about that? Just in case you misunderstand me, this is a serious remark, not meant to piss you off, but to make an essential point. DirkvdM 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case that's a serious proposal, the point of the ref desk is to help people find answers they can't find by themselves. Either we can point them to the right article or if the info isn't on wikipedia we can provide it. And if so, we thus find out where there are any gaps in Wikipedia and fill them. I for one do that quite a lot. And that seems quite useful to Wikipedia. DirkvdM 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It does actually serve a useful pupose IMO--Light current 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, just thought! RDs add an air of current Wikipedians views and POVs etc etc. Where else can you pick up this flavor at WP? They are worth keeping just if only for the historians in the future. They may see that were not all stuffy nerds but real people with real heart felt opinions! --Light current 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very serious. I stay away from the reference desk but have dropped in a few times lately due to reports of problems there. I was rather shocked at what I saw. I suppose we must let each editor contribute in their own way, but I've not seen a bigger time-waster here than the RD. This is an encyclopedia- the goals of the project go no further. When I buy a copy of Brittanica, I've bought an encyclopedia. I don't expect that this includes a guy who will come to my house, hold my hand, and read it to me. Is it reasonable to expect a reference desk? Not in my opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a place to get other people to do your research for you. Friday (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, my brother bought Britannica when his children were starting school years ago, and they had a service where the purchaser could ask specific questions about just about anything and receive back well researched answers. In some cases, they appeared to be from a library of previously prepared research papers, but in other they were obviously farmed out to a researcher such as a grad student or reference librarian. Not so different from what RD does in its best moments. If someone does not want to ask questions, answer questions, or read q & A, no one is forcing them to do so, so I can't see the validity of calling for the removal of a service whose value is demonstrated by its traffic. I feel I have donated considerable value to Wikipedia by answering questions in areas where I have expertise, and I have learned from the answers others have provided. Checking the relevant articles has demonstrated shortcomings leading to revision and improvement. Edison 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal to remove the Ref Desk entirely is off topic, so a violation of User:SCZenz's unilateral guidelines, and therefore subject to immediate removal. StuRat 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm shouldn't off topic posts be deleted according to SCZ? 8-)--Light current 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you're just being clever, and not trying to be a WP:DICK. If you're looking for a serious answer, I will note that this is the Talk page and not the Ref Desk itself; discussions about the nature, management, and appropriateness of the page are entirely on-topic here. Further, discussion is allowed a much greater latitude on talk pages anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the Ref Desk is currently considered to be a talk page, by me, admin SCZ, and most others. Friday's topic is fine on this talk page, just not under this section, as it's off-topic for this section. StuRat 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually find the Ref Desk to be helpful in building the encyclopedia. Sometimes someone will ask a question, and it's obvious that they just need to be pointed at the search box and sent on their way. Other times, a question will point out a genuine – and sometimes a serious – gap in our encyclopedia's coverage. I've expanded, rewritten, or flat-out created quite a few articles as a result of Ref Desk questions.
Besides, at it's best, the Ref Desk provides a nice change of pace. Writing articles can be very passive. You suspect that what you're doing is probably going to be useful to someone, somewhere, at some time. Answering a Ref Desk question gives a nice little thrill of accomplishment—you know you've helped someone real, right that minute. So what if Britannica doesn't do it? We're trying to be better than they are.
Finally, the Ref Desk is some people's first exposure to the Wikipedia community. If we make it a welcoming and helpful place, then we can make a very good impression—the Ref Desk has the potential to be a strong recruiting tool for the rest of the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am (all too well) aware of the present discussion. I would like to revive my guideline proposals that I started well before SCZ got involved 8-)--Light current 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Which are? (Sorry, I don't look into the ref desk talk page very often.) DirkvdM 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I would advise you to do so! Many interesting thing are here!--Light current 02:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirks response

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

Gandalf61 s response

My personal view is that the only things that should be deleted from the RDs are personal attacks. All other contributions - whether they be facetious, irrelevant, subjective, rambling, incoherent, badly spelled, ungrammatical, critical, misleading, ribald, in bad taste, biased, cryptic, simply wrong or even about seagulls - have value and should not be deleted. However, I can understand that this may be a minority view. If there is a concensus that the RDs should be regulated, policed and censored then so be it. But for goodness sake please do it properly - come up with agreed guidelines and a process for applying them regularly, fairly and consistently. The current situation of ad-hoc and arbitrary (though well intentioned) deletions, revert wars and sniping and personal attacks on this talk page is very unsatisfactory. Gandalf61 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a suggestion a while ago to not sign responses at the RD. I think this might be worth trying, i.e. treating the answer as part of the encyclopedia rather than as a personally identifiable comment (at which point WP:V and WP:NPOV would apply to answers, but not to questions). Most of the issues I've seen with these pages are the result of users treating the RD pages as a chat room, rather than as a serious resource. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That might actually be something viable, Rick.
That might limit Admins picking on individual users they dislike, but would also make it rather difficult to follow the discussion. If we don't know which comments are from the question asker or from a responder, for example, we don't know if a question is merely rhetorical or not. StuRat 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It would not be a discussion, but a single answer perhaps edited by multiple people in the same way articles are edited by multiple people. No ego involved, just a single answer. I've added an example below (which I've edited to make the answer a single answer). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a bad idea to me. Very few questions have a single, universally agreed upon, correct answer. For example, see [2]. This worked quite well under the current system. However, since we each had different interpretations of the question, and therefore different answers, that would have resulted in an edit war, under your proposed system, if we each kept replacing each other's answers. StuRat 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! Seriously, the approach here would be to preserve multiple answers. If you think the original answer did not address the question you'd add another answer perhaps prefacing both by the relevant assumptions. This would be a fairly radical change and I think it might take a while to adapt to this style of answering, but I'm certain the regulars here are plenty bright enough to figure out how to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Among other things, this would destroy the sense of community we've developed here. Knowing who the trolls are (and who the regular contributors with useful things to say are) is quite important to that sense of community. StuRat 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is quite similar to the above idea that one of the functions of the ref desk is to discover gaps in the encyclopedia and fill them. What you propose is what should be done in the encyclopedia after all angles of a subject are explored. In this sense, the ref desk is the talk page for Wikipedia in general. DirkvdM 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, an aside: were it not for Zoe's post, I would have issued some blocks today on the reference desk. If certain users of the RD are unable or unwilling to get the message that they need to smarten up after being told repeatedly to do so, then tough decisions need to be made. Problems of this sort have been festering for months, and it is more than about time that some users state that the RD is not a "free for all" and that a reasonable amount of restraint when posting on the RD is ncessary. We are aiming for intelligent, useful, witty, human responses, not the sort that invites babysitting. Block for poor, childish behaviour. There is no reason why it needs to continue. Codifying rules to regulate the RD explicitly is in a sense a deferral of responsibility. We are smart enough to figure out what needs to be done. --HappyCamper 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy, could you give us some examples of the types of things you find inappropriate? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades steps in

I'd rather not jump to blocks for childish behaviour; I'd much rather see the really off-topic stuff quietly removed. Mind you, I also think it's very silly for an individual to edit war to put back an off-topic and borderline off-colour remark that doesn't in any way address the question asked, and I agree that that sort of silliness is begging for an attention-getting block. What can I say? I just don't find Dirk's penis as funny as he does. This isn't a chat room, if you can't be funny while you're being helpful, then save it for your blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's about my penis now? This is getting worse by the day. :) DirkvdM 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ten, I had thought it odd why Dirk was mentioned, and it wasn't until I saw his block log that this issue is much different from the scope of what I had in mind. I actually had something else entirely in mind to address, but to answer Zoe, I am did not disseminate this because I felt it would be unfair to preemptively qualify something that has not happened. I'm jumping ship - this does not feel right to follow through anymore. --HappyCamper 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added my comments at User talk:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. StuRat 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Happy, Ive respected you input over the last few months (years?). so I would be interested in which comments you would have issued blocks for. Im truly interested and have no bias toward you! 8-)--Light current 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is correct or not, but I think the reference desk was originally to ask questions that you couldn't find in the encyclopedia itself. If this purpose hasn't changed, then anything that can be answered by actually USING wikipedia should just be deleted. Anything else should be kept, and before being deleted/archived, any relevant and correct answers should be transferred to the relevant articles. -- Chuq 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say most of the questions do have answers somewhere in Wikipedia, the problem is finding them. Wikipedia's search capabilities are rather pathetic, and new users don't know how to use Google to search Wikipedia. Also, if they don't know the name of the thing they're looking for, they really do need human assassitance. StuRat 11:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
People who don't know how to look things up will be newbies and deletion will confuse them (apart from it being extremely rude). Best to just give the right link, as is now usually done. Also, sometimes provides a link and someone else then finds out that doesn't actually answer the question. If the first one removed it, the newbie would be left out in the cold and we wouldn't know about the gap in the encyclopedia. This is a very general problem here. As you can see in the 'racist trolling' thread I mentioned above, even a whole bunch of people can have the wrong idea about something, but allowing one person make the decision will lead to loads of mistakes. There has to be some concensus about deleting a thread and the thread itself is the best place to discuss it. DirkvdM 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a perfectly fine idea to remove comments from the reference desk (or indeed, any other process) that do not belong there. Examples would include personal attacks, repeated stupid questions, and intentionally fake answers. (Radiant) 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
And who is to decide that then? If it becomes normal procedure for people to remove stuff according to their whim, then the ref desk will become an edit war zone. Some articles are and they don't see anywhere near the activity that the ref desks do. DirkvdM 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose that most editors here are able to ascertain the nature of personal attacks, repeated stupid questions, and intentionally fake answers. I never said that people should "remove stuff according to their whim". (Radiant) 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But that may be the result if it becomes normal behaviour to delete other people's comments. Like I said, that already happens on many articles that see a lot of activity. But no article has anywhere near the activity that the ref desk has and if there is no easy way to detect a deletion then people can get away with lots of stuff. I sometimes suspect that a post of mine is deleted (by someone who disagreed or whatever) and even then it's too much work to find that out. I wonder how many of my posts have been deleted because I get into quite a few heated discussions. The thought really pisses me off because I can't do much about it. Make it normal to delete stuff and that will get out of hand. The only solution would be to devise a way to make it easy for people to check what has been deleted and I don't see how that could be done. DirkvdM 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would call that a slippery slope fallacy. In the history, taking a diff between your last edit and the present one (that'd be the 'cur' button) makes it easy to see what, if anything, has been removed. (Radiant) 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Too much trouble. What's the problem- just let anything go in the way of responses, and delete inflammatory questions. Nothing too formal is expected of such a high traffic page so why stress out about it --frothT C 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Froth's response

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

Justanother's input

(Note: I posted this on the Admin NoticeBoard)

I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.

Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).

Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.

Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.

--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

LCs explosion!

Yes Ahem! Sorry! Am I f***** invisible/inaudible? I suggested guidelines weeks ago and everbody said we dont need em. The evidence now is that we do need em. Many people have now said we need 'em. So whats the score? If people think we need em lets continue the discussion I started. (If you dont mind)--Light current 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 14#Draft guidelines for the Reference desks (draft #1)? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes thank you. How kind of you to find them for me 8-) Thanks--Light current 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Draft guidelines for the Reference desks (draft #1)

  1. Respondents should address only the question, not the questioner.
  2. Respondents should keep all answers 'on topic'
  3. All WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette and WP:AGF rules apply to these pages

Copied from where they were originally.--Light current 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Light current - I think your proposed rules 1 and 3 are fine. Your rule 2 ("Respondents should keep all answers 'on topic'") is too subjective and open to interpretation for my taste. Is Dirk's "popping your collar" response 'on topic' or not ? Opinions differ. This is where we came in. Gandalf61 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about setting rules/guidelines, whatever they may be called. But the above discussion is about deleting anything that violates such rules according to someone, which is a totally different ball game (and quite frankly pisses me off). DirkvdM 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly #2 is bound to be open to interpretation. Perhaps it should say:

Respondents should try to keep all answers 'on topic' if possible. --Light current 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Example of a question without a signed response

This is an example of a question without a signed response. The question would be signed (like this will be), but the responses would not. So, here's the question. Why is there air? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see our article on air.

Discussion about this (not part of the example)

Any further editing would be edits to the response - without a signature! and without "separate answers" being indicated. It's not a discussion thread, it's a single answer. So, if the answer was not complete somebody else might come along and expand the answer by editing it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick, it seems that you're trying to make response(s) into an article. Knowing as you do the difficulty in achieving consensus on an article with the full benefit of a talk page, I don't see that happening here. I consider myself an avid but random WP reader and am often influenced by the RD Q&As for direction and in doing so I've come to learn who's-who amongst the responders. To strip away the response sigs would take away most of the knowledge compass of the RD. --hydnjo talk 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm! And it would make some people uncertain about how to reply!--Light current 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, editing and rving would be rampant under the guise of refactoring. --hydnjo talk 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm buying this. The meat of most responses is generally only a sentence or two. If the rules were "treat the answer like an article" the answers would often end up as a simple "see some article". Where this is not sufficient, the answer would grow to the size it needs to be to fully answer the question, through multiple people's edits. This changes the focus from the responder to the response, and others reading the page later would revise the response only if it actually needed to be revised. IMO, this would be a much more "wiki" way of handling the RD. Sort of like how the FAQ pages have evolved. Would anyone mind terribly if we experimented with this approach on some page (I don't really care which) at least for some questions? To make it clear what's going on the response would need some introductory text explaining the approach, something like the following. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This response is using an experimental approach to answering questions where the answer is being treated like a mini-article. Please feel free to edit the response if you feel it is not sufficient, but do not sign your edits.

Have a look at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#generator to motor question. I don't see the richness of response to that question happening within the confines of your model. --hydnjo talk 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Per below. The idea is the OP gets a response from wikipedia, not from any particular contributors and, if necessary, converses with wikipedia. Responders do not communicate with anyone other than the OP, and clarify or extend a response by editing the previous response. Responses are subject to further editing (ad nauseum), questions including followup comments from OPs are never edited. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Initial response:

Rewiring may not be needed at all; just feed DC current to the unit and it will spin (for generator, not alternator). See Electric motor.

  • After first follow-on edit:

Rewiring may not be needed at all; just feed DC current to the unit and it will spin (for generator, not alternator). See Electric motor and electrical generator. Many generators through history have been motors as well. Thomas Edison's DC generators at Pearl Street, the first central power generating station in the US, had that characteristic, so that the speed governors had to be mechanically linked to keep one from running increasingly fast (being a motor) while the other ran increasingly slow (being a generator) when they were first connected in parallel. In todays AC power system, a generator whose steam supply is retired (like in a closed nuclear plant) can be run up to synchronous speed with a small pony engine, then paralleled to the AC system bus. It will run as a motor powered by the AC network, and by adjusting the field current, it can be a synchronous condensor, correcting the power factor and raising the system voltage to a desired level like a bank of capacitors. A simple permanent magnet DC motor, such as found in a toy, will generate DC if spun rapidly. A more complicated AC or DC motor may need rewiring of the field coil electric supply, which takes the place of the permanent magnets in a small toy motor. An AC generator needs some way to get up to near synchronous speed, such as a start winding which is disconected when it is up to speed or the aforementioned pony engine which can be mounted on the generator shaft. If full line voltage AC were connected to a stationary AC generator which was unmodified, it might draw heavy current and present a locked rotor condition and burn out.

  • After second follow-on edit:

See Electric motor and electrical generator. Rewiring may not be needed at all; just feed DC current to the unit and it will spin (for generator, not alternator). However, you need to know a bit more to get the results you are looking for and avoid burning something. You need some means of controlling the voltage and current applied to the generator/motor. I assume you are talking about a DC generator and not an AC generator or alternator. The easiest and perhaps the only way to deal with the field is to connect it to a separate power supply. Probably the simplest way to get the motor started is to put several resistors in series with the armature and progressively short them out as the motor comes up to speed. With an assortment of resistors and a voltmeter and an ammeter or two, you can probably figure out quite a bit, but you really need a textbook.

Many generators through history have been motors as well. Thomas Edison's DC generators at Pearl Street, the first central power generating station in the US, had that characteristic, so that the speed governors had to be mechanically linked to keep one from running increasingly fast (being a motor) while the other ran increasingly slow (being a generator) when they were first connected in parallel. In todays AC power system, a generator whose steam supply is retired (like in a closed nuclear plant) can be run up to synchronous speed with a small pony engine, then paralleled to the AC system bus. It will run as a motor powered by the AC network, and by adjusting the field current, it can be a synchronous condensor, correcting the power factor and raising the system voltage to a desired level like a bank of capacitors. A simple permanent magnet DC motor, such as found in a toy, will generate DC if spun rapidly. A more complicated AC or DC motor may need rewiring of the field coil electric supply, which takes the place of the permanent magnets in a small toy motor. An AC generator needs some way to get up to near synchronous speed, such as a start winding which is disconected when it is up to speed or the aforementioned pony engine which can be mounted on the generator shaft. If full line voltage AC were connected to a stationary AC generator which was unmodified, it might draw heavy current and present a locked rotor condition and burn out.

  • After third follow-on edit (from OP):

See Electric motor and electrical generator. Rewiring may not be needed at all; just feed DC current to the unit and it will spin (for generator, not alternator). However, you need to know a bit more to get the results you are looking for and avoid burning something. You need some means of controlling the voltage and current applied to the generator/motor. I assume you are talking about a DC generator and not an AC generator or alternator. The easiest and perhaps the only way to deal with the field is to connect it to a separate power supply. Probably the simplest way to get the motor started is to put several resistors in series with the armature and progressively short them out as the motor comes up to speed. With an assortment of resistors and a voltmeter and an ammeter or two, you can probably figure out quite a bit, but you really need a textbook.

Many generators through history have been motors as well. Thomas Edison's DC generators at Pearl Street, the first central power generating station in the US, had that characteristic, so that the speed governors had to be mechanically linked to keep one from running increasingly fast (being a motor) while the other ran increasingly slow (being a generator) when they were first connected in parallel. In todays AC power system, a generator whose steam supply is retired (like in a closed nuclear plant) can be run up to synchronous speed with a small pony engine, then paralleled to the AC system bus. It will run as a motor powered by the AC network, and by adjusting the field current, it can be a synchronous condensor, correcting the power factor and raising the system voltage to a desired level like a bank of capacitors. A simple permanent magnet DC motor, such as found in a toy, will generate DC if spun rapidly. A more complicated AC or DC motor may need rewiring of the field coil electric supply, which takes the place of the permanent magnets in a small toy motor. An AC generator needs some way to get up to near synchronous speed, such as a start winding which is disconected when it is up to speed or the aforementioned pony engine which can be mounted on the generator shaft. If full line voltage AC were connected to a stationary AC generator which was unmodified, it might draw heavy current and present a locked rotor condition and burn out.

Now that you mention it the generator is more likely an AC altenator since it outputs line volatge at 120v and 240v. The current rating is ~33 amps and ~16.5 amps respectively. I do not have a circuit diagram and I have not opened it up yet so I can't be sure until I do. Since the length of the housing is relatively short like an alternator versus say a DC starter motor it is most likely an alternator. Becasue it is powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine which has a rope starter I was hoping to be able to wire the generator/alternator so that it would start the gasoline engine and the switch over to being a generator again. Since this is an obvious means of starting a gasoline motor I figure it has not already been done by the factory due to the generator being an AC alternator rather than a DC generator. Since the flywheel does not have any teeth (the replacement flywheels with teeth are no longer available) I can't incorporate a conventional starter. However, the rope housing can be remove exposing the clutch assembly to which I could possibly attach a belt driveand then use a conventional 12v DC starter motor. Any suggestions thanks. Adaptron 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After the remaining follow-on edits (preserving additional question from OP):

See Electric motor and electrical generator. Rewiring may not be needed at all; just feed DC current to the unit and it will spin (for generator, not alternator). However, you need to know a bit more to get the results you are looking for and avoid burning something. You need some means of controlling the voltage and current applied to the generator/motor. I assume you are talking about a DC generator and not an AC generator or alternator. The easiest and perhaps the only way to deal with the field is to connect it to a separate power supply. Probably the simplest way to get the motor started is to put several resistors in series with the armature and progressively short them out as the motor comes up to speed. With an assortment of resistors and a voltmeter and an ammeter or two, you can probably figure out quite a bit, but you really need a textbook.

Many generators through history have been motors as well. Thomas Edison's DC generators at Pearl Street, the first central power generating station in the US, had that characteristic, so that the speed governors had to be mechanically linked to keep one from running increasingly fast (being a motor) while the other ran increasingly slow (being a generator) when they were first connected in parallel. In todays AC power system, a generator whose steam supply is retired (like in a closed nuclear plant) can be run up to synchronous speed with a small pony engine, then paralleled to the AC system bus. It will run as a motor powered by the AC network, and by adjusting the field current, it can be a synchronous condensor, correcting the power factor and raising the system voltage to a desired level like a bank of capacitors. A simple permanent magnet DC motor, such as found in a toy, will generate DC if spun rapidly. A more complicated AC or DC motor may need rewiring of the field coil electric supply, which takes the place of the permanent magnets in a small toy motor. An AC generator needs some way to get up to near synchronous speed, such as a start winding which is disconected when it is up to speed or the aforementioned pony engine which can be mounted on the generator shaft. If full line voltage AC were connected to a stationary AC generator which was unmodified, it might draw heavy current and present a locked rotor condition and burn out.

Now that you mention it the generator is more likely an AC altenator since it outputs line volatge at 120v and 240v. The current rating is ~33 amps and ~16.5 amps respectively. I do not have a circuit diagram and I have not opened it up yet so I can't be sure until I do. Since the length of the housing is relatively short like an alternator versus say a DC starter motor it is most likely an alternator. Becasue it is powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine which has a rope starter I was hoping to be able to wire the generator/alternator so that it would start the gasoline engine and the switch over to being a generator again. Since this is an obvious means of starting a gasoline motor I figure it has not already been done by the factory due to the generator being an AC alternator rather than a DC generator. Since the flywheel does not have any teeth (the replacement flywheels with teeth are no longer available) I can't incorporate a conventional starter. However, the rope housing can be remove exposing the clutch assembly to which I could possibly attach a belt driveand then use a conventional 12v DC starter motor. Any suggestions thanks. Adaptron 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like Scrapheap Challenge. You could bodge (that is the British term they use, do I have it right? Oh, I see it is a pejorative - sorry); bodge on a starter from a small motorcycle with a belt and pulley. You will need some sort of movable idler pulley or tensioner so the belt does not keep turning after it starts or you could mount the starter on a pivot. Good luck!
Remember now I said when the rope housing is removed it exposes a clutch. since the shaft is keyed as a square rather than a slot making a pully for the belt or chain drive should be easy and without the need for a release. Thanks. Adaptron 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Great. Let us know how it turns out.

The way it turns out is that each time I check back to learn more about the subject I need to read the entire answer, top to bottom, in order to find out what has been edited in/out, if anything, from my previous visit. A particularly bad thing if two or more editors disagree. And damn it, now I can't even throw up my hands in despair and go to Google-answers and spend $2 for a stable response! --hydnjo talk 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even attempt to read all of that dense text. Breaking it up by individual answer, especially as in most cases on the RD it's a discussion and not just a response, is much easier to read, and IMHO, much more educational. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "Serious Ref Desk" Test

I suggest we create a new "Serious Ref Desk", as a test:

  • No jokes.
  • Any off topic remarks will be immediately removed.
  • No signatures.
  • No conversations.
  • Only direct answers to the question are allowed.
  • No opinions.
  • References are required for all statements of fact. Any response lacking refs will be immediately removed.

Let's create it in parallel to the current Ref Desks and see how it goes. We will need Admins or others to go through the desk frequently and be very strict with enforcing the rules (there's no shortage of Admins twitching to do just this). StuRat 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Worth considering, but a first thought - how would questioneers (especially newbies) know which one to go to? Should the strict one be general, like the miscellaneous desk? So should that desk then be transformed in that way? But then that would be even more confusing to newbies. DirkvdM 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats the first good laugh Ive had in weeks: visualising certain admins glued to their monitors with popping eyes, lolling tongues and twitching fingers. No doubt panting, waiting for the next kill! Interesting idea though. Trouble is many will say that all the RDs should be deadly serious anyway. 8-(--Light current 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I would make it a general ref desk for those who don't like frivolity. I'd put it on the same level as the other Ref Desks, possibly even the first on the page. I would suspend the "no double posts" rule for the duration of the test and allow them to post on both the Serious Ref Desk and a normal Ref Desks, to ensure that they get the answer even if the test fails, however. StuRat 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps instead we could have a "so-called-humorous" reference desk where LC and friends can play, whilst the existing reference desk could be left in relative peace. My view is that the RD has improved in the past few months; the sorts of things that were winding me up mostly have gone away. I don't think your "serious RD" idea is going anywhere, except to demonstrate that there is still an issue with the amount of noise on the RD. --Tagishsimon (talk)
The whole idea of a test is to verify whether a change is an improvement, before we risk making the change on the main Ref Desks. In case you are unaware of the past discussions, the risk of a Serious Ref Desk is that it will be too dull and nobody will bother answering questions anymore. Admins claim that this won't happen, so this test is designed to see if they are right. StuRat 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Aha ! Parallel thinking - I too had considered proposing a division into Serious and Not So Serious RDs. Another argument in favour of this is that anyone who disapproves of a question or response on the Serious RD can move it to the Not So Serious RD, instead of just deleting it. Gandalf61 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
True, but I really don't think this will happen much. I, for one, won't make any jokes on the Serious Ref Desk. StuRat 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I've been back for the last few months, so maybe I've had a 'positive' effect in this respect? :) Others say it's getting worse. I'm in the middle and say it had always been this way. The ref desks have just grown considerably in size, that's the only change I've noticed. Largely the same crowd and style as a year ago. DirkvdM 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Any such idea would need to be approached more from the angle of 'Formality' rather than seriousness. For instance the front page )Lets call it General RD for now) would be the formal desk where people could ask serious questions and expect to get a serious (allbeit brief) reply.
For those questioners with a little more curiosity, and broader minds, they could be referred to the more specialisat and less formal desks where a wider range of opinion and answers (inc some funny) may be expected.--Light current 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. --Dweller 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a poll. Do you have anything to say? DirkvdM 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely signatures should be kept so that you can follow up anything off topic off of the desk, otherwise without them the only way to continue a discussion would be to do it at the desk, which your are saying isnt allowed. Also if you know somethig but cant cite it, does that mean you cant say it. As if finding citations was as easy as google search, then there wouldnt really be any need for the question in the first place. Philc TECI 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is what it would mean. I don't think it's a good idea, but we keep getting suggestions to "be more serious", "cite all sources", "delete all off topic remarks", "omit signatures", "avoid conversations", etc., so I wanted to test all these suggestions out. StuRat 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Look I cant wait for the serious ref desk to start (seriously). Can you give an indication of when? we can expect it? Im really looking forward to deleting anyone who even steps slightly out of line. 8-))--Light current 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sui generis

I contribute to the reference desk as an identified, albeit anonymous individual; and thus I would wish it to remain. I have no desire to see what I write corrupted and bowlderized, like so many other pages in Wikipedia, to which I make no input. Here I am free from the POV warriors, and I can make a valid contribution within the limits of my expertise, and, I hope, guide people to some deeper understanding of the matter under consideration. I do not always expect people to agree with the points I make, but I hope to stimulate some creative thought. I do not want to be part of a collective mass of undifferentiated opinion, or forms of Stalinist diktat. Therefore, I am completely opposed to the above suggestions, which I consider misguided and unworkable. Clio the Muse 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We disagree a lot, but it seems we agree that we should be able to disagree. However, if you refer to StuRat's proposal (of so, why didn't you respond there?) then realise that that leaves two types of ref desks. If the one we prefer now turns out not to be such a great idea in comparison, then it should go. Too bad, but at least initially the two sides will be out of each other's hair. But I think there will be a need for both and neither will go and we will costantly be out of each other's hair. DirkvdM 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, is the title suposed to mean you consider yourself to be something special? Well, you're something else, but then so am I, so there can't be anything wrong with that. :) DirkvdM 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally want that type of Serious Ref Desk, either, but we seem to be getting more and more pressure from Admins to do just that. We should therefore at least try it, and see if it works or not. StuRat 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It can't be done. Just imagine a question like 'Was Stalin a good leader'? Just imagine the sheer horror of trying to reconcile opinion on that! Ah, yes, the Island of Doctor Moreau leaps to mind. There is a way of tackling questions in a serious and informative fashion without silly and misleading asides, and without sacrificing our individuality. That's the point, I think being made by those with admin. powers. It can be done with goodwill and good intent. Clio the Muse 12:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A question like that, on the Serious Ref Desk, should get this response: "That question calls for an opinion, which is not permitted on the Serious Ref Desk. Please repost to another Ref Desk, but leave this post here as a record". ...as for Admins not wanting us to sacrifice our individuality, Rick Block proposed that we stop signing posts, and he's an Admin. StuRat 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I most definitely do not speak for all admins (and, anyone who claims they do is lying), so please don't generalize my comments to "admins" (and this whole us/them thing is really starting to piss me off - in nearly all contexts admins are simply users like any other whose opinions should carry no more weight than those of any other experienced user [admins as a group include a high percentage of extremely experienced users]). I've suggested an experiment, which I freely admit would be a fairly radical change. The point is not to suppress individuality but to change the nature of the RD away from chatroom into somethng that without trying it I don't think anyone can precisely describe.

  • Was Stalin a good leader?
Please see Stalin and draw your own conclusions, although he was certainly not good for the several million people killed during his rule. Most people put Stalin in the top five evils the world has ever known, e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Walmart, ...

As an unsigned comment this would be subject to editing. But what would be the point of changing this comment? Perhaps you disagree that he killed several million people, so you change it to "allegedly killed". Perhaps you dislike including Walmart in the top five evils the world has ever known so you delete it. Maybe this annoys me and I add it back. Now you and I are edit warring and we need to resolve our respective differences. Maybe I ask you if you can live with Walmart being in the list with a smiley implying I'm really not serious (offline, on talk pages). The point is our discussion is not relevant to the answer and (IMO, as a user) shouldn't be recorded inline as part of the answer.

Am I suggesting answers have to be entirely serious?

No.

-- Rick Block (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick, as a firm believer in individually sourced responses, and the person who raised the test issue you have taken up, I think maybe I should try to clarify the dangers that I have hinted at. Have you read the Stalin page? Have you read the discussion on the lengthy talk page attached? It's not an encyclopedia or a debate: it's a state of war. Now, I could, and would, provide a reasonable and, I believe, objective response to this question if it was raised on the RD in its current format. Others would, I feel sure, be bound to disagree, providing their own answers. Those interested could sift through the argument on their way towards a balanced judgement. In other words thought and criticism have been stimulated and encouraged. Let's take the 'idealised' response you gave to the question. What would be the point of changing this? Quite frankly, I could turn it inside out and upside down, to give a different picture of Stalin altogether. And this is not hypothetical: many deny that Stalin was either a dictator or a mass murderer: if you ever go to Moscow you should visit his flower-bedecked grave. So, you would come and see that I had changed the statement to read that Stalin was a great leader, who committed none of the crimes alleged by his enemies, and that he modernised his country in much the same way as Peter the Great, at least part of which is true. You, or someone else, would get upset by this, revert to the original and all the anarchy of talk pages and edit wars ensues. Worst of all, those who come for enlightenment leave in a state of utter confusion. It might be possible to reduce disciplines like mathematics, physics or logic to hard core propositions; but it is simply not possible in history, politics, literature, philosophy and the arts, all the areas in which I have an interest, an expertise and an understanding. Wisdom is not achieved by machine-like, collective 'truth'. Individual I am; individual I wish to remain. Clio the Muse 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well thank you Clio, why couldn't I say that! --hydnjo talk 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Then you support my idea for a test Ref Desk ? While you don't object to jokes, many do, so I proposed that jokes should be banned on the test Ref Desk, as well. StuRat 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Those who want a dead serious ref desk, where experts answering questions are forbidden to get any social pleasure out of the process, should be prepared to pay. As a credentialled expert on electrical engineering, I would ask for $40 per hour, and consider that partly a charitable donation. Edison 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the type of thing this test will determine, whether we have enough people who are willing to contribute to a Serious Ref Desk to make it viable. Also, there may be some question askers who prefer humorless responses, and this will help us to identify how many of them there are. StuRat 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If that is the main purpose then you shouldn't clog it with other changes. Just make another ref desk with the only difference that posts deemed inappropriate can be deleted. i don't know if that was his intention, but Rick raised an important issue when he said that disputes could be discussed on the talk page. Given the speed at which things have to develop on a ref desk, jumping between the 'article' and the talk page won't work. This is something that everyone seems to miss. The size and speed of the ref desk make it impossible to have discussions about the discussions and to keep an eye on what is added and deleted. If such a 'serious' ref desk (as if the present ones aren't mostly serious) is to be then it needs a new way to check what edits have been done. I'm not going to dig through the entire history every day. I just checked the history for the miscellaneous ref desk - yesterday over 200 edits. So let's say 1000 edits per day for the whole ref desk. That won't work. Those who want to allow deletions to the ref desks wil have to come up with a solution to that if they want to avoid revert wars. DirkvdM 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's arguing for a "dead serious" RD. Rather, the argument is to try to avoid a puerile RD. --Tagishsimon (talk)
But the only way to be absolutely sure there is never a bad joke is to ban all jokes entirely. Otherwise, which jokes are acceptable becomes a matter of opinion, and Admins will start removing things they don't personally like, and blocking users again. This test also might work as a safety valve for certain Admins, who feel the need to delete Ref Desk material and block users, to show that they are "helping". I'm hoping this will convince them to leave the regular Ref Desk alone, at least for the duration of the test. StuRat 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we don't have to go for absolute surety, but keep tilting the balance back from peurility when we see it arise. Meanwhile you've oobviously had some sort of "Admin" experience, but I'm far from convinced that this issue breaks down on simple sectarian lines like that. Some admans are jokers. Some non-admins are more po-faced than admins. And anyone - admin or not - can remove a crap joke or comment; and a number have. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Yes, but it takes an Admin to block you when you put the comment back, as happened yesterday to DirkvdM. StuRat 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Just in case anyone misunderstood me, I'm all for starting an experimental ref desk, be it one of the existing ones or a new one. This will serve three purposes:
  • Show who likes it (which one do the questioneeers and answerers go to)
  • Show if it will work
  • Give it some time to figure itself out while the original style ref desks continue - a transitional phase
I think this will satisfy both sides. DirkvdM 09:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the reference desk harmful to newbies?

Some people commented that the RD is the first part of wikipedia that some newbies see. This might explain a lot- newbies frequently don't understand what we do here. If the first thing they saw was the RD, this is perfectly understandable.

Wikipedia is not:

  1. a forum
  2. a how-to guide
  3. a place for our own opinons and experiences

Yet, from what I've seen, the reference desk is these things. Why are we intentionally giving people such wrong ideas about the project? If the reference desk were only for questions about Wikipedia (call it the "Help Desk" instead perhaps- whoops, we already have exactly that) these problems might go away. Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone's not buying the "reference desk is harmful to newbies" argument, take a look at this. Here's a newbie who's done nothing but post on the reference desks, and it seems clear from the contributions he's got no clue at all what Wikipedia is about. He's using it as a chat forum, pure and simple. Friday (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If anything, that's evidence that newbies (user:Kjvenus the troll, in this case) are harmful to the Ref Desk, not the other way around. Are you suggesting that we somehow made him into a troll ? He would have been a valued contributor to Wikipedia if only we had stricter rules at the Ref Desk ? I don't think so. Now, if your delete-happy finger wants to delete his posts, then go right ahead (as long as nobody has yet responded). StuRat 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the reference desks are merely an attractive nuisance. The original point I thought I'd made above was that the RD as currently managed can easily give people the impression that Wikipedia is a forum. This is not an impression we want people to get. Friday (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The attractive nuisance analogy is very apropos; the key similarity being that the "nuisance" has value but has not been properly managed. We do not, then, do away with pools, trampolines, and piles of sand; we ensure that they are used safely and protected against misuse.

Let's take a look at what a newbie would see starting with the main page:

Reference desk — Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.

Wow, cool! Maybe they know how to cook this fish my husband caught.

Miscellaneous: Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories

Yeah, that is probably the place.

How to ask a question: A real lot of tiny text. Basically don't ask homework questions in full and no medical/legal advice.

All right! "Hi what is the best way to cook this fish my husband just handed me. I think it is a trout."

Helpful wikipedians that love to cook trout jump in with their tips and favorite recipes; a few may link to an off-site recipe or to a term like fillet or saute. But basically it is all opinion and experience and forum and how-to and decidedly non-encyclopedic and totally in compliance with the header guidelines.

That tells me that the reference desks are NOT articles; they are part of the wikipedia community, they are a discussion forum. They are not subject to WP:NOT which says "The above guidelines apply to articles (emphasis added) on Wikipedia. These [below] guidelines apply to Wikipedia discussions."

Regarding the referenced user; he clearly misused the reference desk on at least one early occasion that I checked, see here. Was he corrected then? I see two more recent warnings on his talk page so hopefully his behavior will change. My point being that "opinion and experience and forum and how-to" are not the problem; the problem, if there is a problem, is our own failure to correct disruptive users promptly. --Justanother 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

POLL: Discontinue the Ref Desk entirely ?

(Copied from above discussion by StuRat 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions
  • Keep the Ref Desk. StuRat 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not "vote" for keeping or removing it. I'm asking if there is value here to offset the harm. I'm hoping there's a way to keep whatever value this provides and minimize the harm. Friday (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the reference desk. The length of the archives show the number of questions asked and answes, which itself constitutes a clear basis for keeping it. No one is being forced to read or answer anything on the page.Edison 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I made this "vote" a seperate section since it doesn't have anything to do with answering the question I posed about whether the RD is harmful to newbies. Friday (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those who answer Qs here know that in directing OPs to certain areas, those areas themselves are being quality checked. When I post a link I usually look at the page Im linking and do some editing there if needed. We also can use it by listening to the questioners comments after having been directed to a particular page.--Light current 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's blimmin great. Mostly. --Dweller 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the whole idea is ridiculous and I've already made that clear above, for anyone who wasn't sure about the function of the ref desk, but if there's a poll I might as well cast a vote. That said, if allowing deletions is going to be policy then I'll be out of here, and so will most of the useful editors. DirkvdM 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the principles of Wikipedia apply in a more flexible way on the Ref Desk, but that doesn't mean that the Ref Desk serves no purpose. It is often the catalyst for improving our other articles, or even plugging gaps that nobody realised existed. It serves an extremely valuable function in helping real-live people with information they've not been able to find elsewhere. It adds immeasurably to the dissemination of human knowledge. And while I recognise that jokes are a separate issue, most of the jokes are laugh-worthy, which helps to keep it staffed by humans and not nit-picking anal robots. This is a good thing. JackofOz 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discontinue. Just kidding, keep. Sure it's wildly unrelated to WP but we got a great thing going on here and a lot of people get helped. And then there's always the argument that it's all one hypercomplex WP search engine.. --frothT C 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Further discussion
  • Ugh. Decline to vote. I was afraid this was going to degenerate into a poll. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Misuse of it doesnt mean it has no redeeming value, it is a reference desk for looking for articles, where you dont know the name or lingo of what you are looking for. If you look in the ref desk history, back to the first few days of its usage, you'll see what its for. Philc TECI 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Im rather amused at Jacks 'nit picking anal robot' Is this a robotic anus that picks nits? And from where? THe mind boggles.--Light current 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With 7 votes to keep, and none to discontinue (not even the person who actually made the suggestion), I think we can quickly put this suggestion to rest. "The motion is soundly defeated". StuRat 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:SNOW. Reminds me somewhat of the excellent film title Gas! or It Became Necessary to Destroy the World in Order to Save It --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Wikipedia does not work through "motions" and voting on them in the first place. If there is a group of people who want to answer questions, they can do so. If another group of people think that first group is wasting their time, they are welcome to not participate in answering. (Radiant) 09:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • BZZT. These are opinions, not votes. I guess we have found that there is no consensus to discontinue. That means we have common ground at that point. Excellent. :-) Kim Bruning 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant's behavior

He decided he didn't like the poll below, so he just deleted it. This isn't allowed under talk desk rules, right ? I said so on his talk page, but guess what, he deleted it there, as well. The applicable rule is at WP:TPG:

"Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."

StuRat 10:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That is of course a false ccusation since I haven't "edited someone's words to change their meaning". It's very ironic that StuRat himself has removed several sets of my comments ([3], [4], [5]), including one that had nothing to do with the poll in question. The applicable rules are WP:POT and WP:KETTLE. (Radiant) 10:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule is "Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission", changing the meaning is just one possible way to edit them. As for deleting your comments, you added your comments in the same edits where you deleted the comments of others. I don't know of any way to undo the deletion without also taking your comments out with them, as I explained on your talk page, which you then promptly deleted. I put your comments back in after, and promised I won't delete any comments you make that don't also include the deletion of other people's comments/votes. StuRat 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest both Radiant and StuRad settle down and do not allow themselves to be diverted from the task in hand: Discussing a new Main RD that is completely serious (and probably boring -but wth?) Also can I ask that no one edits or removes any others posts? THanks. --Light current 10:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Might this be an easrly form of what I was warning about, that if it is made policy that certain postst may be deleted, some people will misinterpret that and start deleting all sorts of other stuff? But LightCurrent is right, let's not clog up the issue with yet another off-topic discussion (should this thread be deleted then? :) ). DirkvdM 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If polls are very silly, they may be deleted :-) In general polls are used to gauge whether or not we have consensus. If you haven't really tried to form a consensus first, then there's no point, and the poll can even turn out to be divisive (and see some of the somewhat belligerant language above for an example of that). Kim Bruning 15:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the result of the poll, but rather the result of Radiant trying to delete other people's comments. That type of behavior on a talk page is almost always going to enrage people. StuRat 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, show diffs. Kim Bruning 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What ? StuRat 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You stated that Radiant of deleted other peoples' comments. Radiant has defended himself with diffs showing there was more going on. Please show the diffs for your side of the story, so that we can have an overview of what was done and why. Kim Bruning 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here are his deletions: [6], [7], [8]. And here is me putting back his text, which he added as part of his same deletion edits (so they had to be deleted and re-added to put them into a separate edit): [9]. StuRat 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

POLL - start a new 'strict' ref desk (as a test) ?

The discussion is slowing down a bit, indicating that most arguments have been put forward. It seems to me the most workable solution is to start a test ref desk where deleting or moving of 'unfit' questions and answers is allowed. How exactly this should be done can then be tested there. This is the proposal at 'Proposed "Serious Ref Desk" Test' and 'Sui generis' above, without the 'no signatures' and 'references required' (let's not be too specific yet). DirkvdM 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Can we please not poll on this? Wikipedia prefers to settle things by discussion rather than voting. There is disagreement over how serious the refdesk should be, but I'm quite sure that creating two refdesks is not such a good response. (Radiant) 09:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to vote, then don't, but don't delete the votes of others. StuRat 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions (poll closed, please don't supply further opinions)

Note, though, that below, Radiant has declared himself in favour of such a test. DirkvdM 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that these polls have encouraged discussion, not discouraged it... --frothT C 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lets give it a try - nothing to lose--Light current 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support We have two opposing views about appropriate content on the RDs, and no sign of common ground. Can't see any other solution. Gandalf61 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I stated below, RD disputes should be transparent to questioners. --frothT C 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion

  • Polls don't actually decide things on Wikipedia. Please discuss the issue instead, and form consensus on the issue. (Radiant) 10:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems some people believe that you can make a "motion" on Wikipedia and call a vote on that, as per parliamentary procedures. However, Wikipedia does not have such procedures, and is not a democracy. Think ahead - what do you want to achieve here? The previous section is a good example of why "motions" don't work; and in this particular case DirkvdM is making a motion which he himself doesn't agree with in the first place (see also straw man). If anyone seriously thinks that creating two refdesks is useful, they can start one and they'll likely find out that there is not enough interest for that. If people want to discuss rules for this refdesk (if any), let them do so in constructive discussion rather than polarized voting. (Radiant) 10:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What if the consensus is to deal with this via a poll? --Dweller 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's disruptive and specious nonsense. Sorry, that was not quite clear enough: it is complete nonsense, based, I suspect, on a childish sense of grievance. And let us indeed be grateful that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Clio the Muse 10:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never understood how you could possibly know what the consensus is without voting. Can you explain ? StuRat 10:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
How is agreeing to start a desk that would answer all the previous criticism disruptive? 8-?--Light current 10:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's likely confusing to have two desks. But I note that the people in favor of a new desk with stricter rules are the same people that object to those stricter rules - so in effect they are expecting to stay on this desk themselves, and request the people who disagree with them to leave this desk and start a new one. Do you really expect that will work? (Radiant) 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We already have 6 Ref Desks, this would add a 7th. We don't expect anybody to leave the current Ref Desks. This is only a test, not intended as a permanent thing. If the test succeeds, then we can look at changing the rules on the current lighthearted desks with new stricter rules. StuRat 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you expect this to work - have categories for "humanities", "literature" and "serious questions"? Or would you make it twelve ("humanities with jokes", "humanities without jokes")? Who is volunteering to run this new desk? Are that enough people to make it work, because if not the experiment will fail by default. (Radiant) 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, there would be a "Strict Rules General Ref Desk" and the 6 current desks, unchanged. It's not that complicated. The experiment may succeed, or may fail, that's the whole point of a test, isn't it ? If we were absolutely sure it would succeed we would just implement it permanently, and if we were absolutely sure it would fail we wouldn't even bother with the test. StuRat 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, that answers my first question, but do you have volunteers to run it? Do you expect people that have questions about, say, literature to go to (1) the literature refdesk, or (2) the strict rules refdesk? (Radiant) 11:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The way it would be set up is the same way the present ref desks were set up. It would be a general ref desk, possibly the first on the list, to give it a fair chance. Once it's there, people will start using it. I don't see the problem. In your example, the question would probably go to the literature ref desk if we had such a thing (!), but what matters is how the question is consequently dealt with (by the ref desk residents). DirkvdM 11:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is nowhere near a consensus, so a decision has to be reached somehow. I stated above that I am in favour of trying this. I just don't think it will work, but to find that out it has to be tried. The point is to provide a solution for the polarisation. Like I said it will get those for and against deletion out of each other's hair. This will provide a transitional phase in which emotions can settle down a bit and the idea can be tested. Note that I might become active at that desk too, just to give it a try. Maybe people will manage to find ways to get it to work (most notably keeping tabs on the changes) if they are not disturbed by feuds. It's not to get rid of the deletionists. It's only temporary. If the idea works better than the original ref desks, then it might get implemented everywhere. DirkvdM 11:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that trying something new to resolve a dispute is a good idea. The best way to do this is probably to get some volunteers to simply start this new refdesk and see where it goes, and find some good way of naming it so that people with questions actually go there. You don't need anybody's permission to create a new page. (Radiant) 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We didn't have a group of volunteers signed up to man the last new desks we added, which were the Computer and Math Ref Desks, and they worked out just fine ... "if you build it, they will come". And we would be changing the main Ref Desk page to provide a link to the new page, so we should be sure that at least a few people have an interest in the test before doing so. I don't think we need to set up any archive mechanism, we can just run the test for a couple weeks and then decide what to do from there, the size shouldn't get too bad in that time, especially considering the lack of conversations, etc. StuRat 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, but if you want to be certain of results anytime soon, it never hurts to ask some friends to come help test it. Duh! :-) Kim Bruning 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My a-bit-more-detailed explanation for my oppose above: this issue has nothing to do with experimenting with a new desk. This is clearly a question of policy not dissatisfaction with responses. We don't agree on policy, fine- then we discuss policy to no end (as has been going on, and the topic shows absolutely no signs of exhaustion). But what would a new experimental desk prove? Answers won't come faster. Answers won't come better. Answers will only come without jokes. I doubt it would catch on, but even if it did the most such a desk could prove is that posters don't like humor. But it's irrelevant, it's a question of policy not of popularity --frothT C 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy is whatever we make it. If people want to try a new system and it works, that's up to them to try, they have that freedom :-) If it doesn't work, we mark it as a discontinued experiment, like so much of wikipedia, and we learn from it. If it does work, well hurrah! :-) Either way we gain something, and our guidelines get improved. Kim Bruning 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strict Ref Desk mockup

With four people voting for the above test proposal (and Radiant apparently leaning towards the test) I thought this was enough encouragement to create a mockup of what it might look like. The only changes relative to current Ref Desks are at the top and bottom right (and the removal of the "Sign your posts" rule).

I've created a mockup we can look at here:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Strict

And the template is here, in case you want to make any modifications:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Strict/How_to_ask_and_answer

I haven't created any link from the main Ref Desk page yet, since I'd like to get more feedback, first. Also, this gives us time to work out any changes we want to make before the test is put into place. StuRat 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the name of the new ref desk. It should be clear to newbies what it is. The best alternative I can think of right now is 'concise reference desk' because that's what the answers are supposed to be.
Note that my proposal here was to do it without the 'no signatures' and 'references required' bits. I did that with the objective of not complicating matters. SCZenz may argue that this is not what he meant and continue his deletions at the other ref desks (which he is still doing by the way, despite the fact that the discussion over it is still ongoing). It is already normal to give references, so that won't add much (but it won't complicate it either, so it's a moot point I suppose). And about not signing, do you mean to make it something like an article section? On second thoughts I am slightly in favour of it. And it would have to be like that because no discussions are possible if you don't know who you are talking to (see also Geejo in thread below). But then you added 'no conversations', so I suppose you meant that.
Also, shouldn't the rules also apply to the questions? So people shouldn't ask about opinions, because the answers are not supposed to give any. DirkvdM 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would apply to question askers, as well, that's a good point, I will modify the template to say that. Also, considering it an article page instead of a talk page is exactly what I had in mind. As for which strict rules to add and which to skip, perhaps another poll should be done to iron that out. For now, I'd like to leave all the strict rules in (even adding more if you can think of them), so we can all look them over. StuRat 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, as a quick post-hoc note, the above poll is useless for forming consensus as no actual basis for the peoples' opinions has been provided. It's now part of the running discussion, so I won't delete it. Instead I'll let it stand as an example of how not to do it :-P Kim Bruning 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The basis for our opinions fill this talk page. To repeat them all here would just make a mess. StuRat 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case, you can refactor the polls out. Have a nice one! Kim Bruning 21:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, then there would be no evidence remaining that enough of a consensus exists to at least create the mockup for the test. That evidence is the poll results, which lean heavily in favor of the test (4 to 1, as of this time). StuRat 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You don't need to have a consensus to just create a mockup in the first place. You definitely don't need "evidence of consensus", I've never heard of such a thing before.
If people somehow strenuously object when you create your mockup, there might be some evidence of lack of consensus at that point in time. Though, seriously, based on the discussion here at least, I doubt there will be any objections, except perhaps by some people who need wikipedia process explained to them.
Kim Bruning 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't be unreasonable- these little poll sorties have been valuable to the discussion (in fact they've basically been the discussion for the past few days) and they shouldn't be thrown out just because they're in poll format. They aren't binding votes, they're a handy table of contents that lets you know who thinks what as you read their comments --frothT C 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I adding "No swearing" to the rules, and changed "No double posts" to "No triple posts", in case they want to double post between the Strict Ref Desk and one of the regular Ref Desks (for a comparison of the type of answers they get). StuRat 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This "Serious Reference Desk" sounds like a type of WP:POV fork to me. -THB 07:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? POV fork only applies in the main namespace. Kim Bruning 16:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea! As I stated before, since not all policies apply to the RD, policies shouldn't be arbitrarily defined as "applicable" or "irrelevant" but this seems by definition (not by policy) a POV fork. Which as I said may or may not be OK for the RD but I don't like the idea of a RD POV-fork. It's eerily close to what's going on here --frothT C 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a planned fork, but it is by definition not a POV fork, as POV is irrelevant in this context. Kim Bruning 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Point of view of policy not of content. But like I said that's not necessarily a bad thing, I was just intrigued by the similarity --frothT C 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all a lot simpler than that

What we have here is some disagreement over how to work the reference desk. Of course, such issues are not resolved by shutting it down entirely (besides, we're all volunteers here, and if people volunteer to answer questions there would be no point in stopping them). This is also not resolved by creating several reference desks, because that just increases the confusion.

Instead, we could create a simple and concise list of things that are or are not appropriate here. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. For instance we probably don't want a large picture of genitalia on here, and if a new user accidentally posts a new article here, we should just remove it and place it in article space. If there are other things that people argue don't belong here, let's talk about it. Some people say that jokes are inappropriate, but I'm sure there's the occasional question here that's so weird it just begs for a funny response, and frankly you can't legislate against humor anyway since it's human nature(yes, yes, we had a policy proposal to outlaw sarcasm a couple weeks ago... that was rather strange).

I've seen the suggestion of not using signatures on refdesk responses. That may be a good idea, the best idea to test that is if some refdesk regulars stop using their signatures here and see if it catches on; no harm done either way.

Think this would help? Comments welcome. (Radiant) 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem I see with doing away with signatures is that it can become difficult to be sure which comment a response is directed towards. Indenting isn't always clear enough, and without being able to clarify by addressing the commentor by name (Were you talking to me? I dunno, who are you?) it'll get confusing fast.
The other issue is that in a multi-paragraph reponse like this one, you need a signature to tell you where one comment ends and the next begins. I suppose both problems might be solvable if you substitute ~~~~ for ~~~~~. Ending a response with the date/time it was submitted is always handy for easily determining when a new entry has been added. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion about eliminating signatures goes farther than simply "do what you do now, but don't sign". It suggests treating the response as a collaboratively edited piece of wikitext, i.e. the response is not a discussion thread but a chunk of wikitext (more like an article than like a talk page). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO the suggestion to create a new, humorless refdesk "to try it out" basically borders on WP:POINT. I don't know whether it's acutally meant this way or not, but it definitely comes across as "if you don't like our refdesk, go start your own with rules more strict than anyone has ever proposed should apply anywhere and see how many responders you get". I'm very busy in real life at the moment and apologize for not reading the entire thread on this carefully, but from what I've seen I don't think anyone is supporting this experiment except the folks who will in all likelihood never visit this new page. Perhaps the "poll" above should be changed somewhat with the question being would you support (meaning participate as a responder at) a new refdesk with the new rules. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Rick, once you get a chance, have a look through all of the stages leading up to this absurd campaign. It's directed against user SCZenz for removing, quite rightly in my view, an irrelevant and distasteful posting on the Miscellaneous Desk. This was no arbitrary action, explanation being given; but the user in question insisted on its restoration, the issue quickly degenerating into a revert war. This bogus strategy over a 'strict' reference desk is a transparent attempt to create a ghetto, specifically, it would seem, for SCZenz. It's bad practice, bad faith and ludicrous. I completely agree that the happiest solution for all would be for the little gang to disappear quietly into their own self-created wilderness, and there exercise their 'wit' and 'cleverness' without troubling anyone else. My apologies for appearing to be so bad-tempered, brought on by the pathetic silliness of this whole business. Clio the Muse 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you certainly do seem bad tempered. However, this is not just a reaction to SCZenz's enforcing his unilateral rules by blocking a user (and being rebuffed by a fellow Admin as a result). In addition to his rule changes (and/or stricter enforcement of existing rules), there have been many other rule suggestions from others. You, for example, want to avoid discussions of a sexual nature (although Anchoress and many others oppose this). Rick wants to avoid the thread system we currently use and replace it with a single, collaborative answer, without signatures, much like a current Wikipedia article. Then there is Friday, who wants to delete the Ref Desks altogether (OK, we can't really give that a test, can we ?). Many others want to see less humor, but there isn't really any way to agree on how much less, so I proposed none in the test. Others have raised the issue of wanting to see refs for all factual statements and not wanting to see any opinion questions (Friday said this). So, let's try some of these suggestions out, and tweak the Strict Ref Desk until we find something that works. What's your objection to this ? StuRat 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On a point of information, I do not, and have never objected to the discussion of sexual matters: my debate with Anchoress was over the legitimacy, and desirability, of giving advice on access to escort services. However, I do admit that I object to vulgarity and smut in the guise of wit. People will, I feel sure, understand the specific reference I have in mind. Clio the Muse 06:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The rules are open for debate, I merely added the strictest possible rules to reflect all the various suggestions I've heard. If people want to try it with just your "treat it as an article" suggestion, or just no jokes, or just no opinions, that's fine too, whatever the consensus is. StuRat 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The no signatures sounds good. Making something new which you hope is better than before is almost never disruptive, so "Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point" won't apply :-) Kim Bruning

Rick, the problem is there is no consensus about deleting posts at the existing ref desk either. When SCZenz started doing that it met with a lot of protest (which hasn't stopped him, though). So trying them out elsewhere seems like a good alternative. DirkvdM 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that to get a genuine test we would have to apply the rules to one of the existing desks, rather than create a new desk. This would determine how the rules/system worked in actual situations, and the page could carry a notice saying that it was trialing an experimental method. If we created a new desk, it would have disproportionate numbers of a)confused people b)people generally involved with the reference desk who want to test it. Average question-askers would mostly ask at the existing desks, because they are clearly marked with what sort of question they are for. If you wanted a vigorous test of a change, I would try it on the Misc desk, since that contains the most buffoonery at the moment. If something works there, it should work overall. Skittle 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We could do that, but I see some disadvantages:

1) People used to using that Desk would not know about the rule changes. Being a new desk, with the name "Strict", they might expect some stricter rules and actually read the rules.

2) It's not fair to apply to rules retroactively, so this would leave earlier posts following different rules than later posts, which is bound to confuse the users.

3) If the test fails, that is, it just doesn't work to get good answers (most likely due to lack of responders willing to follow the strict rules), then we've lowered the opinion of many Wikipedia users. If it's a "test" Desk, then they don't have such high expectations.

4) I've proposed suspending the "no double posts" rule for the duration of the test, to allow questions to be posted on both the "Strict" Ref Desk and one of the regular Ref Desks. This will allow for a test and control, to best compare which set of rules provides the best answers to the same question. StuRat 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This'll be great, we haven't had a Nomic going for quite a while around here! --hydnjo talk 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the object of this to change the rules in such a way that your opponent is obliged to move to new ground, allowing you to revert back and claim the old ground for yourself , and thus deny them access? Or is it just to bend rules for the sake of bending rules, so that nobody knows the way up or the way down, the way left or the way right? Or is it simply a game without rules, which, of course is no game at all? Clio the Muse 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be violating "assume good faith" by attributing evil motives to anything we do. Why can't you accept that we want to try out the new proposed rules to see how they work ? StuRat 04:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel anything evil is going on other than the opinion poll of course. I do however feel that the suggestion to fork the RD is absurd. --hydnjo talk 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You do realize it would just be a temporary test, maybe 2 weeks long, right ? It can't do much damage in 2 weeks. StuRat 05:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my comments above. --hydnjo talk 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it is kind of a bad idea. RD-drama should be transparent to Joe Questioner. --frothT C 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the only probable alternative is that the deletionists will get their way on the existing ref desk and above you made it clear that you oppose to that. DirkvdM 10:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm well it won't just default to "deletionism" if we don't do anything- it's a false dichotomy. There are other options, and anyway "don't delete anything" and "start a new reference desk" aren't exactly exclusive. Why don't we have a desk where no non-inflammatory responses are deleted, regardless of their seriousness, and see how that works out. Oh wait, we already have them and !gasp! it does work. By the way the collaborative answer idea sounds good- however in some cases it wouldn't really work, like an issue with many sides or when there's another angle to the question that a responder wants to explore. It's a lot clearer to identify different responses through multiple posts than to try to integrate it all into one big answer. Oh and signatures shouldn't be completely left out, but all contributors' signatures should go under the response. And then there's the issue of vandalism since reverts are so very difficult on such a high traffic page- this is sounding like a worse and worse idea as I bring up various concerns.. --frothT C 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be accumulating more and more deletionist Admins, like user:Friday, who wants to delete the entire Ref Desk, or failing that, let anyone delete anything they feel like, and user:Radiant!, who feels free to delete any discussion, even on this talk page, that he doesn't personally agree with. Then there is user:SCZenz, who wants to delete anything that doesn't conform to rules which he writes (and aren't open for discussion), without notifying the user. StuRat 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at the history of the 'whiplash' desk, folks. It has already been subject to brilliant flights of 'wit'. The Owl of Minerva has taken wing! Clio the Muse 10:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is forking the ref desk absurd? It's been done several times already. The only difference is that this 'fork' is not about content but about method. One concern is indeed that it might be confusing to newbies, but that seems easily solved. The entry at Wikipedia:Reference desk should adequately describe it a short phrase, like "an experimental reference desk where going off-topic and jokes are not allowed and will be deleted", possibly without that last bit, despite the fact that that is what it is really about, but newbies don't need to know that. So maybe shorter, like "An experimental reference desk without off-topic diccussions or jokes". The shorter the better. This will certainly attract some questioneers and give us an idea of how many of them find this desirable. (So far the discussion has been between answerers, but what about the questioneers, whom this is really for?). At the top of the separate ref desks it could be on a separate line (along with the archives link) to mark it as different, possibly with '(experimental)' next to it. DirkvdM 10:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Strict Rules General Reference Desk (for those who want a straight answer with no frivolity)", that's what I have as the subtitle on the mockup. StuRat 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Hang on, wait wait, we're going to make a new "no fun" ref desk? Erm, I haven't looked into this in detail yet, but... why would people volunteer to do boring, none-fun work?

Perhaps we can we also make a split that requires all replys to be in haiku, limeric, iambic pentameter or at least rhyming doggerel form? <innocent look>

We can then compare and see which of the three is most popular. <very innocent look>

Kim Bruning 16:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ...even though I've always had the greatest trouble getting my verse to scan.

Now that would be fun. Unfortunately wikipedia isn't in the business of attracting editors, we seem to come in droves anyway (like bugs to a bright light). Newbie bias :( Which is kind of a misnomer in this case since there's little evidence to suggest that newbies don't like the humorous side of the RD. --frothT C 19:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in the business of being a fun way to make an encyclopedia. Our volunteers are real people, not some infinite supply of mere robots we can just play with or stomp on at will. Kim Bruning 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Newbie bias is a recognized thing, I'm not just spouting crap here --frothT C 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean bias toward or against newbies. I detect quite a lot toward them ATM 8-)--Light current 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actual Poster Input

Instead of making a new desk to guage user reponse, why not just make a nice subpage to this talk page and ask in the RD headers for input from posters on whether they appreciate humor in responses. The opinion of questioners is of limited value as I pointed out above but this seems like a better idea than a whole new desk. A discussion with actual questioners would be of far greater value than just counting the number of people that use the new desk, and (if we do it the way that the mockup did) users are just as likely to participate in the discussion page as they are to participate in the new desk --frothT C 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be simpler. Make a {{serious}} template and point out its existence at the top of the pages. Not a bad idea. DirkvdM 11:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Get your friends together and try the new design, or don't get your friends together and stay with the old one. One or the other. But don't keep beating around the bush. You are as much in control of wikipedia as everyone else. Make a decisision and apply it. Kim Bruning 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If nobody has any objections, I'll make it tonight and link it here, along with a mockup of a modified header. An admin will have to do the actual update of course. --frothT C 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Or not. I'm just being bold and making the change in a couple minutes --frothT C 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity is a Vandal magnet

The whole "Serious RD" appears to be a WP:POINT violation. Keep one RD and apply WP existing policies to maintain the quality of answers. I hate the idea of anonymous answers provided by anyone in the world with access to a computer. How can it possibly improve the quality of the answers? How can the person posting a question form an opinion of the qualifications of the responder? Above there was a question copied to this talk page. Someone had a technical question about motors and generators. The questioner could easily check and see that both responders are (or at least claim to be) electrical engineers, and that they have contributed to numerous technical articles. With the proposal, the answer could be any IP person pranking the questioner. Bad idea. As is, I spend a fair amout of time searching the history file to identify anonymous editors, because that helps to out pranksters who are posting a whole series of dubious questions just to waste the time of those willing to answer serious questions. I do not see what is wrong with someone doing hard work to research and post a good answer getting credit for it, or with readily identifying pranksters. Edison 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That "getting credit for it" part is important, especially as related to the entirely volunteer-run Wikipedia. Usually credit is given by the page history, but since nobody really reads the RD history except for the odd {{unsigned}} I agree that the signatures are important. By the way, it's not really a POINT violation since it's the result of exhaustive discussion and anyway it's not disruptive. If anything (as pointed out earlier) it's a POV fork. And vandalism/falsehood is always a problem, and could easily be just as much of a problem with signed comments so that doesn't really apply. But what is a vandal magnet is "do not vandalize"! --frothT C 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think answers should be signed.--Light current 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As do I. StuRat 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And I, for the reason Edison mentioned that one can assess contributers' usefulness from previous experience with them. DirkvdM 11:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that signed comments on the reference desk will lead to meatball:VestedContributors. wiki:DocumentMode is the objective of wikipedia. If at the ref desk we find extra sources or what have you, documentmode will make it easier to update articles than wiki:ThreadMode will. Kim Bruning 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand

After taking a few days to think, and reviewing the above discussion, I have a number of comments.

First, the discussion above is largely fruitless, here's why:

  • Whether it's appropriate to abuse the reference desk is not a matter of opinion, and is being treated as one by some people. Some behaviors advocated, and practiced, by certain users above simply violate Wikipedia policy. Discussion can't overturn Wikipedia policy on the ref desk, any more than a consensus on Talk:George W. Bush could suspend WP:NPOV on that article. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what we are saying at all. We are saying that what constitutes abuse is a matter of opinion and you apparently find comments to be "abuse" that many others (including at least one Admin) do not. This is the problem, and this is why we shouldn't allow you to be the sole judge of what is abuse, what should be removed, and which users should be blocked. To be clear, no single user should be given that power, but you, in particular, have demonstrated that your judgment is faulty. StuRat 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The "strict reference desk" is a joke, an effort to create a false dichotomy and to shove concern about the status quo into into a box. The idea is, rightly, being ignored by almost everyone. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not being "ignored by almost everyone", there have been many responses to the suggestion, many positive. And calling anything you personally disagree with a joke is insulting. You also seem to be violating "assume good faith", by attributing evil motives to the actions of others. StuRat 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of signatures was an interesting idea, but I think Clio and others have brought up real practical difficulties; probably best to leave things as they are. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, the reference desk doesn't really need to be reformed! This is my big insight from a few days of thought.

  • The reference desk rules work fine (with even a modicum of common sense), and a few minor discussions don't hurt anything anyway. I apologize if I gave the impression that I wanted to get rid of every little discussion or joke. The problem I was trying to address is major frequent misuse of the page, which is in fact not due to any missing rules. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, there is not "major frequent misuse" of the Ref Desk, such misuse is minor, rare, and usually accidental (like a side discussion that strays a bit too far off topic). And such minor, rare, and usually accidental misuses can and have been dealt with by gentle reminders here on the Ref Desk Talk Page and/or the user's talk page, not by heavy-handed, and potentially covert deletions, blocking threats, and actual user blocks. StuRat 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is a few particular users who are substantially misusing the reference desk as a discussion and social networking forum. This is getting in the way of factual answers, and should be dealt with. However, it need not be dealt with by general policies or systematic comment-removal (even a temporary and informal system like I was using)—it can also be dealt with by addressing those users specifically, first through community pressure and then through the dispute resolution process. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The object of the Ref Desk is twofold: To answer questions correctly and to foster a sense of community. You don't seem to feel the need to foster a sense of community, as indicated by your divisive tactics, which have been detrimental to that sense of community. StuRat 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Third, what I think should be done now:

  • My previous approach to the situation, as a purely administrative matter, is not workable without unanimity among administrators or a big fight. We don't have the former, and the latter would not be good for Wikipedia. However, I do note that a number of admins (about six, I think) who reviewed my strategy agreed with it, and only one opposed; there is a consensus among experienced users that something has to be done here. The consensus among "reference desk regulars" is a bit more muddled, of course, because the ones who abuse the reference desk are among the most continuously vocal on their right to do so. (However, I am by no means saying that everyone taking this position abuses the ref desk.) -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And what does it tell you that the farther people are away from the Ref Desk, the more they are for strict rules and strict enforcement ? It tells me they don't know what they are talking about, because they aren't familiar with the collaborative process employed at the Ref Desk. This is why you, and other Admins, need to actually pay attention to those involved in a project, as they have insight into how the project works. This is insight that you, and many others who are not very involved in the Ref Desk, apparently lack. StuRat 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed one of the major points here. And I was rather surprised that SCZenz was the one who started doing this (and is now, oh horror, being copied by others who have less sense of what and how to delete), since he was once one of the most useful contributers to the ref desk, so I thought he'd understand. DirkvdM 11:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't personally see the point of further discussion with users who misuse the reference desk; I tried that for a long time, and my effort failed because those users have fundamentally self-oriented arguments, rather than thinking in terms of the good of Wikipedia or the reference desk. For example, they tend to argue that:
    1. They have the "right" to say what they want, regardless of whether it is helpful or harmful to the goal of the page.
    2. That nobody would edit the ref desk if jokes and discussion (no matter how unhelpful) weren't allowed. What they mean is that they would quit—everyone's contributions are valued, but nobody's participation is so important that the threat of withdrawing it can be used to make demands on Wikipedia policy. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Nobody has argued that they have the right to add things which are harmful to the page. Let's see some sources for this strawman argument, please. What many have said, is that they don't want you to be the sole arbitrator who decides what is harmful for the Ref Desk, because any one person's opinion, and especially yours, may well be faulty. StuRat 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) We need as many answerers as possible here. At present, most, but not all, questions get a good answer. Having even a few Ref Desk regulars leave in disgust would likely reduce the number of good answers substantially. We actually need more answerers, not fewer. StuRat 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the reason you perceive the "discussions" to have failed is that the consensus is not with you and you don't actually listen to the opinions of others (unless they are Admins); your idea of "discussion" is "I've decided what will be done, and you will do as I say or I will block you". Even when what you do violates Wikipedia policies, you still don't seem to care. StuRat 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Users who are concerned about the state of the reference desk should take a look at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments, where I describe my new strategy for pointing out problematic comments on the reference desk. It will get the job done, but it will take longer, and it will require everyone's help! -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a major problem. To convince 'everyone' to help you in your, you should have gone anout it completely differently, not starting with a sledge hammer, but giving everyone a chance to join in in making the rules, not unilaterally declaring them. DirkvdM 11:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's everything, hopefully. I'm not gonna get drawn into a big discussion on this, I'm just gonna go ahead and follow my own plan. If others join me, it will work in time—or a more formal solution will be sought in regard to individual users who are creating problems here. -- SCZenz 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see you have reached consensus with yourself! 8-) But unfortunately with no one else (yet) 8-(--Light current 02:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds familiar: again you've decided, all on your own, what should be done, and again, you've threatened users who don't comply with your unilateral rules and process. StuRat 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First class, SCZenz, and eminently sensible. All a good reference desk needs is knowledge, good sense and good faith. There will always be people around with these basic qualities to make the whole thing work as it should. Clio the Muse 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst this proposal is a drastic improvement on the previous one, it still needs to gain consensus.--Light current 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a proposal. It's what I'm going to be doing, and what I am asking those who agree with me to do. -- SCZenz 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks very much like a guideline page to me 8-|--Light current 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "The reference desk rules work fine (with even a modicum of common sense), and a few minor discussions don't hurt anything anyway." Most of the "objectionable" (to me, at least) behavior falls under

1) Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.

and

2) Be polite. to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.

If SCZenz wants to point out when the board goes too far astray and gently bring it back on point then I do not object. But a gentle reminder please, not a heavy hand on the delete key (or even a light one - just leave that key alone, please). Though WP:NPA violations should be dealt with in a more appropriate manner than "gently". --Justanother 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but you dont agree its a good idea to remove a reply just coz its not a full answer, do you?--Light current 03:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Left. All due respect but I think that if you are going to the effort to answer a questioun then you should answer it and not play a game with the questioner. I guess we should assume that the person that asked the question is only capable of putting the question here and reading the answer here so give them the answer if you have it. And if you do not have a complete answer then give them what you have. Only in the rare case that it is way too much to put here then summarize and link to the full answer. --Justanother 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, to answer your question. I think very few removals are called for. A reminder may be. --Justanother 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the rules being fine as they are. You might even be right about the attitude of the RD as a social thing. However this isn't a big issue; infractions are minor and infrequent. Also they don't detract at all from the effectiveness of the RD. Of course if they're deliberately misleading this is a problem but it's a problem best addressed by a reply, not by clearing their response! Answers should never be edited or deleted in any way- with some extreme exceptions that's basically how it's worked in the past and it's worked fine. Yes there may be some problems but again it's not a big deal and to make things simple and keep from ruffling a lot of feathers, just don't do anything --frothT C 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You've not seen some of the problematic comments I've seen, perhaps—rude comments to newbies, opinions presented as facts, discussions on something entirely irrelevant to the question, etc. Therse are things that get in the way of our purpose here. The way things worked in the past is not acceptable. -- SCZenz 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not acceptable to you. Fortunately, you don't get to decide, on your own, what is or is not acceptable. StuRat 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me restate what I think are the major problems here. If censorship is allowed, then it has to be consistent. If not, people will limit what they remove to content they don't approve with that also happens to violate some rule. This would be selective zero tolerance. Maybe if everyone does this, that would even things out, but it would result in all violations, even the slightest, being removed, creating an extremely strict ref desk with no fun at all anymore and then not just a few people will leave.
Another important point is that given the amount of edits here (about 1000 per day!) it is impossible to keep track of what is being removed, so it will become a free-for-all. And some will think censorship is normal here and not bother to follow (or read) the rules and start deleting at will. Anyone with any experinece here knows that a lot of people don't even know the most basic Wikirules. A dangerous predent is being created here. DirkvdM 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with responses to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Proof_for_God's_inexistence

Edison responded to this opinion, and call for discussion, correctly—by pointing out that Wikipedia is not to be used as a soap box. There was no request for information, so there was no other way to answer. But then other users followed up by arguing the point, resulting in the misuse of the ref desk as a discussion forum in violation with WP:NOT. This should not have been done. -- SCZenz 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

SCZenz, here is the problem, as I see it: First, you make a seemingly reasonable statement like: "The reference desk rules work fine (with even a modicum of common sense), and a few minor discussions don't hurt anything anyway". That's fine, but then you go on the attack for what was "a few minor discussions". In other words, you say you will only go after egregious examples, but you don't, you go after very minor issues, as you did when you blocked Dirk. If you would actually do as you would say, your actions would be a lot less objectionable. I believe you are motivated by a need to "fix problems" that leads you to see problems where none actually exist. StuRat 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the user requests opinions, this is not the place for them; "what do you think of my argument?" is not a factual question, it's a request for opinion; but yes, this isn't the most egregious example, and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up. However, the comment that Dirk made in the incident you refer to was both off-topic and inappropriate, and by no means a "small problem." -- SCZenz 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It only takes the most minor reinterpretation to make it entirely appropriate: "Is this a logical argument ?". To me, getting hung up on the precise wording is as silly as forcing every answer on Jeopardy! to be in the form of a question. If we know what they mean, does it really matter if they didn't ask it quite correctly ? As for Dirk's "popping the collar" comment, you still find that to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy, despite an Admin and many users telling you otherwise ? I see we still have work to do with you. StuRat 12:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who asks such a question should (and probably does) expect wild speculations and discussions going all over the place. Anyone who is not interrested can skip it (as I did). So who is left who could have a problem with this question? DirkvdM 12:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some quick comments: 1. the argument posted for comment is not original research, but well-known (to philosophers), and goes back at least to A. J. Ayer. I therefore don't see a problem with discussing it, just as we might offer interpretations of and responses to other theories and arguments (see for instance the nearby discussion of a passage of Leibniz). 2. The question was about two subjects which are pretty clearly humanities: the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science. It was therefore in the right place. 3. More generally: this discussion is being muddied by an unexamined, and in my view unhelpful, distinction between 'fact' and 'opinion'. The important distinction, surely, is between answers which merely assert something without support (from empirical evidence and/or reasoning) and answers which do give support? What counts as a mere opinion, then, is to do with how one constructs an answer, not with the content of the question. Yours, Sam Clark 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Exploring the issue brought up by the OP is one of the greatest advantages of the RD. If I'm doing research on samurais and I ask "how long are samurai swords" and someone answers, somebody adds more detail, and before you know it I have pages of facts and references all about the making, use, and characteristics of samurai swords! Let it stand SCZenz --frothT C 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Petty War

I see the reference desk is now being used to carry on a petty-minded campaign against another user, who is mentioned by name. This is not a joke-it is bad form and bad practice, the very things we must avoid if any credibility is to be retained. I will not delete this: I delete nothing, but I would request some administrative intervention. Clio the Muse 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide us with a link so we can check it out. Also, there is no need to request Admin assistance until we determine that this problem can't be handled in-house. StuRat 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It might help if you were a little less oblique about what you would like an administrator - at your service - to investigate. Rockpocket 07:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see 'Sections of a Page' under 1 December. You will see when and why the alteration was made in the page history. The statement in question was previously removed as a bordeline personal attack. I want nothing 'at my service.' My assumption was the action by an administrator was the only way to avoid a revert war. Clio the Muse 08:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Clio, I think that Rockpocket meant that, since s/he is an administrator, and you requested one, you now have an administrator 'at your service', awaiting further instructions/clarification. Anchoress 08:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see; thanks. From the way it was written to me it looked as if I was trying to wheel one out like a robot! It is my dream to have people 'at my service'. Sadly, dreams and reality rarely walk hand-in-hand! Joking aside, the matter I have raised should, I believe, be taken seriously. It is the worst possible practice to use the RD to attack and undermine other users, no matter how aggrieved the individual in question may feel. Clio the Muse 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Clio, which Ref Desk is it ? Humanities ? StuRat 08:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, not knowing when I'm speaking with an Admin is a common problem, I do wish they could identify themselves uniformly, like with a special signature. How do you quickly identify whether a person is an Admin or not ? StuRat 08:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a link to the question: [10]. StuRat 08:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it; thank you. Clio the Muse 08:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's the deletion by User:Skittle: [11]. StuRat 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's the revert of the deletion, by User:DirkvdM: [12]. StuRat 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now for my interpretation of what happened:

This question was asked:

How do you add a section?

These answers were added, then deleted:

Great, one gold star awarded. Well done!87.102.8.53 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See Self-fulfilling prophecy or Wikipedia:New contributors' help page - which ever applies.      

Careful with irony if your answer may not be appropriate. Big bad SCZenz might delete your post. DirkvdM 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The first answer threw me, at first, but then I realized they are assuming the user now knows how to add a section, since they just did so when adding the question. However, I don't agree, since they might have used the special "Ask a question" link, and not know how to use the "+" sign after Edit to add a section, or how to manually add one using multiple equals signs during an edit. StuRat 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The second answer seems based on that same assumption, although they did point the user to the correct page for this question.

The third answer probably isn't appropriate there, as we want to protect users from having to read about deletionist fights on Wikipedia.

As to whether I find any of these responses so bad that they need to be immediately removed, no, I don't. StuRat 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another user has been traduced by name on a desk intended for reference purposes in a way that would bewilder any casual user. The comment itself, as I have said, is petty; but there is a bigger principle here. It's regrettable that you fail to see this. Clio the Muse 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Which of the three comments are you talking about, and what "bigger principle" do you mean ? The biggest problem I saw is that the question remained unanswered after those 3 responses (although Dirk did try to answer it later). I added what I believe to be a thorough and correct answer to the question, so the user is hopefully no longer confused. StuRat 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have though that it was obvious, especially when all of my other remarks here are taken into consideration. The bigger principle would seem to be self-evident: the Reference Desk is for dealing with specific questions and providing a degree of clarification and guidance, not for childish squabbles. To mention another user in this fashion is, in my submission, a clear breach of procedure, an example of bad faith and, let me be quite frank, an astonishing display of petulance. Clio the Muse 09:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I do wish you would just say what you mean, rather than make us guess. I think you are talking about the third comment, which I agree is inappropriate. However, I don't see it as being as bad as you evidently do. I think I would have added a comment on Dirk's talk page, and let him remove it, if he agreed. This doesn't compare with swearing at people, racial slurs, etc., which are the types of things that should be immediately deleted. StuRat 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not believe that it was necessary to dot every i and cross every t; wrongly, it would assume. If you are blind to the principle there is really nothing more that I can add. However, I do wonder just how objective you are in the matter? Clio the Muse 09:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I will have to guess what you mean by "the principle". You could mean that we should not present our petty squabbles on the Ref Desk, in which case, I agree. This does not, however, mean that failure to follow this principle requires either immediate deletion or Admin intervention. These are severe actions that should be reserved for more serious issues, in my opinion. And I strive to always be objective, why would you suspect otherwise ? It might interest you to know that I disagree with Dirk on just about every political opinion of his. We are also engaged in dispute over an article he wrote on a Dutch book, which I consider to have a blatant anti-US bias. Just because we disagree, though, doesn't mean I want to get even with him in other areas. StuRat 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Clio. After stating I was 'at your service' I then got distracted by a page protection backlog and abandoned you. Apologies also for the clumsy phrasing, as Anchoress suggested, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were demanding attention! Anyway, I have caught up with the discussion and my interpretation is much like that of StuRat's. I concur that comment is inappropriate, on principle, for the RefDesk. I'm happy to discuss the matter with DirkvdM, though any user, not only an administrator, could do that. Rockpocket 09:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Rock. Discussion between myself and the user in question would not be constructive. Clio the Muse 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It's really just a matter of treating him with respect and following proper procedure. If talked to as an equal, he can be quite reasonable, but, when dictated to, he becomes quite defensive, as do most people. The rules for behavior here aren't all that different from real life. If your neighbor put up a highly objectionable Xmas display (say Santa and the elves having sex), would you call the police first or discuss it with those neighbors first ? I would hope you wouldn't call in the police until you first tried a civil approach. StuRat 09:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to the response given immediately above. Clio the Muse 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why you "talk in code", rather than mentioning the names of people you are talking about, listing the Ref Desk in question, etc. If you mean your comment "Discussion between myself and the user in question would not be constructive" (code for Dirk), then I disagree. If you can discuss things in a civil manner with him, rather than "tattling" on him, I would think he would be quite responsive. StuRat 10:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Tattling, is it? I rather naïvely assumed that I was raising a legitimate point about appropriate usage in an open fashion. But thank you for putting the matter into proper perspective for me. As it is, I have said all that I consider necessary. Clio the Muse 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Escalating a dispute without first taking the time to talk with the individual user involved can, itself, be disruptive. StuRat 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, why don't you let me do that ? I think he would take it better from a Ref Desk "buddy" than an Admin. StuRat 09:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing, though i'm not exactly a stranger to the Ref Desk myself ;) Just drop me a line if there is anything I can help you with. Rockpocket 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure will, thanks. BTW, do you have any answer on how I can quickly identify if a user is an Admin ? StuRat 09:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If it looks like an admin, smells like and admin and acts like an admin, its probably an admin (or else someone pretending to be an admin!). So, errr, I don't have an answer for that. Its a good question though. The quickest way I can think of is to check their top-right userpage for the admin mop, but there could be an argument for identifying them on their signature (the mark of the beast, some might say). Personally, I'd rather go incognito, though. Since admins have no authority over non admins in the majority of Wikipedia functions, if there is something admin-related I can help with I will self identify (albeit in an a manner so unclear as to confuse my correspondent) otherwise I'd rather be regarded as one of the rank and file. Regarding the issue here. I appreciate there are differing opinions on certain RefDesk issues between Clio and Dirk which may cloud this specific issue. Sometimes its better to avoid the risk of further conflict. Still, I hope Dirk can see reason with your request, StuRat, as its difficult to see beyond WP:NPA here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Rockpocket 10:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I'd assumed there was a list of Admins somewhere, and I could just search the list for a particular name to find out if they are or aren't. For example, User:Radiant! started deleting things from this talk page, and quoting policy pages right and left, which is behavior I associate with an Admin, but I don't actually know if they are or aren't. StuRat 11:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a list at WP:LA which is manually maintained (new admins are appointed at the rate of 5-10 per week). Special:Listusers is always correct and current. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Dirk has now removed his post, all that was needed was to ask him nicely. StuRat 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's it, be gentle with me. :) Note that I did that before I read any of this. Btw, what do you mean (way up) that I tried to answer it? I did answer it! You consequntly copied my answer and put that above mine, although that might have been the result of deletions and reverts, all very confusing. DirkvdM 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I found your "two times three equals" to be quite confusing, and I know what you were trying to say. I used the nowiki tags to show them exactly what the code looks like, which should hopefully be easier for the users to follow. StuRat 12:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Clio, why wouldn't any discussion between us be constructive? Just in case you're mixing up form and content, I'm frequently head to head with StuRat, as I often am with you, but that doesn't mean we can't have a civilised conversation. DirkvdM 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of committing not one but two faux pas, I think that Clio objects to any third-party editor being mentioned by name in the context of a quarrel so she "talks in code" to avoid committing the self-same offense. --Justanother 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain her not listing the section title of the post she objected to (until asked), and not listing which of the answers was unsatisfactory, or even which Ref Desk she was talking about. Then, when asked what her objections were, she seemed to say "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you". Apparently we are expected to read her mind. StuRat 16:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Justanother; we clearly think the same way! I apologize for not flagging up the specific point in question, which was purely due to technical inexperience. But as for the nature of my objection, I do not think I could have made that any more precise. For those with no wish to follow the trail I will restate it for a final time: the RD should not be used in pursuit of individual vendettas, no matter how trivial. What would a casual reader have made of the reference in question? I am pleased that it has now been removed, and that good sense has prevailed. Clio the Muse 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure and glad to see that you did not object to either of my liberties; naming you and interpreting your words for you. --Justanother 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Clio the Muse 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it now, but let me explain my confusion over the issue, so you understand the problem for next time. First, the title of this section is "Petty War". Now, a war has combatants on both sides, and, since SCZ did not appear to be involved in this edit, that term didn't appear to apply between him and Dirk. On the other hand, a very short "edit war" did erupt between Dirk and Skittle, so that's what I thought you were talking about. Now, as for your post:

"I see the reference desk is now being used to carry on a petty-minded campaign against another user, who is mentioned by name. This is not a joke-it is bad form and bad practice, the very things we must avoid if any credibility is to be retained. I will not delete this: I delete nothing, but I would request some administrative intervention."

This also confused me, because you called SCZ a "user", while he is an Admin. The other two posts which Skittle deleted and Dirk reinstated might also have been part of your complaint, I didn't really know. Here is how I would have posted the issue (after having politely approached Dirk, of course):

Personal attack

User:DirkvdM launched a personal attack on Admin User:SCZenz under the "Sections of a Page" post on the Humanities Ref Desk on 1 December: [13].

The text of the attack is:

"Careful with irony if your answer may not be appropriate. Big bad SCZenz might delete your post."

This post, along with two others, was then deleted by User:Skittle: [14].

All three posts were then restored, by User:DirkvdM: [15].

I've already politely asked Dirk to remove the personal attack, and he refuses. Does everyone else agree that this post should be removed ? If so, perhaps it's time to request Admin assistance in this matter.

DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE IS JUST A SAMPLE OF HOW TO POST A COMPLAINT, NOT A REAL COMPLAINT (DIRK REMOVED THE POST IN QUESTION VOLUNTARILY). StuRat 07:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Phew, you had me worried for a second! I was about to say that it was not an attack and after being asked politely I did remove it myself. So next time you come up with a fictional example, could you make it a little more fictional, please? :)
If deletions are to be allowed, such a discussion should take place in the thread itself, or at least there should be a link to the discussion at the talk page. Also, there is the problem of time-lapse. I usually only check out the ref desks onced a day, and may notice any notes on my talk page a little late. So people might conclude I'm not being responsive when in reality I'm just not there. This combined with the speed of the ref desk (something that sets it apart from the rest of Wikipedia) makes this sort of thing (almost?) unworkable. DirkvdM 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I only check the Ref Desk once a day, too, but for a 23 hour stretch (the other hour I spend drinking coffee and popping No Doze). :-) I think talking, in the thread, about how something might be taken as an insult by the poster is actually more insulting than the original comments, in many places, so don't like the idea of talking about post deletions within the posts themselves. Also, would the discussion of the deletion be deleted, too ? StuRat 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a link to the discussion at the talk page would be just as good, and even better because that won't get deleted. We'd need to wait for at least 24 hours until deletion, though, to make reasonably sure the poster becomes aware of the discussion. If the post gets deleted a nottification should still be sent to the poster's talk page. To make sure that actually happens, it would have to be automatic, and I'm not sure if that is possible. There would have to be some software in place to detect deletions. Maybe that would be possible if it were reformulated as 'changes to previous posts'. That would be desirable anyway. Like I said before, a major problem is that keeping track of such things is almost impossible with the amount of traffic the ref desks see. DirkvdM 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism - yet another POLL

Since the above discussion about deleting posts deemed 'inappropriate' is not being sufficiently constructive, let me restart with the most basic question.

Should deletions at the reference desks be allowed?

How and according to which rules and whether anything should be done about inappropriate posts is another matter. First let's get an idea if the whole idea should be open to discussion in the first place. DirkvdM 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • DirkvdM 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Only in extreme conditions like large images posted or deceptive links to shock sites. frothT C 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Under conditions (as given below)

  • Only under conditions of violation of current WP poilicies--Light current 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I say delete of original question and any responses OK if two, maybe three, editors agree. Change subject header to "deleted" and if someone wants to restore they can shoot for consensus on the talk page. Other option instead of delete is to move all to talk page if two editors agree and let the consensus build there. --Justanother 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Only remove severe personal attacks, death threats, etc., and notify the user whose comments you've removed. If that user restores the comments, allow another user to remove them, until the 3RR prevents the original poster from putting the text back in again. StuRat 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

Irrelevant: creating this poll shows a lack of understanding of wikipedia. There's discussion below, let's use that instead. Friday (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion

I might change my vote ('oppose') if there were some way to easily keep track of deletions. But that would then first have to be made possible. One way might be to have a separate history list that shows alterations to previous posts by other users than the one who wrote them. Another option might be to automatically send a message to that user if it happens. Then, it would not depend on the decency of the deleter whether this is done. Another option is that the rules of the ref desk are changed. DirkvdM 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the question is very useful as is. Pretty much everyone would support the deletion of death threats, for example. The question is what type of things should be permitted to be deleted, especially without permission (or even notification) of the author. StuRat 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I just covered that last bit, which I think is the biggest problem. Any real serious stuff could maybe be struck through. Just a thought. Other solutions might be possible. A death threat would be rude but pointless - how is one to kill someone over the Internet? :) Let me remind you of the example I gave above of a question about which race was superior in the US in the 19th century, which turned out to be a question about how whites regarded the issue at the time, which was a reasonable, neutral question. Delete that and the truth won't surface. DirkvdM 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, I thought that there was an ad-hoc procedure in place for deleting obvious trolling and other objectionable posts. One editor proposed deletion and if a second editor agreed then the second could delete. What is wrong with that? Well, obviously there is not real process there as two quick editors might delete something which would otherwise have stood. But there are easy answers to that too. Make it three votes to delete. Change the section heading to "Deleted as seconded (or thirded)" and if someone cared to review the deletion they can and if someone cared to restore it they can bring that up on the talk page). --Justanother 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It was more like a deletion if you could tell it was obviously completely inappropriate, or asking for consensus if it's unclear (IIRC light current asked for consensus about deleting that racial question, which saved us from an embarrasing delete) --frothT C 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is, i believe, an incorrect approach to the issue. It's a wiki, by default everything is subject to deletion. Questions and answers are not in the main namespace, but neither are they part of talk page discussion. Editors don't own their additions to the reference desk—no permission is necessary for removal.

The idea being put forth is that contributions to the desk are somehow sacrosanct—that there is some principle which forbids their removal. Why should off-topic discussions, bad jokes, and trolling be inviolable additions? If, as StuRat states, the "question is what type of things should be permitted to be deleted", then the default answer is everything. If we need some pratical guidelines to help out w/ editing on the desks, then make some proposals, try and build consensus, but the starting position for such a discussion is that all contributions are subject to deletion. "Should deletions at the reference desks be allowed?"—they are alowed, if some editor want's to take a contrary position then the burden is on them to convince the rest of us.EricR 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So I may delete your post if I wish? DirkvdM 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Because if there is no effort at all toward agreement or consensus then it is not "the rest of us" doing the deleting; it is likely the rest of us wondering why someone deleted something. Everything is subject to deletion, yes, but by consensus if there is any chance of it being controversial. What is an obvious troll to one person is a misworded question to another, hence seconding or thirding required to prevent POV deletion. --Justanother 15:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with EricR's assertion that anything can be deleted, without cause, from the Ref Desk. That would lead to total chaos, with everyone deleting other people's answers if they disagreed with them. All views should be retained, and the question asker can then decide which are most relevant to them. StuRat 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The "wiki process" is the final authority on content. So far we've been making out o.k. by using common sense, but some editors have identified a problem and are using the "wiki process" to try and correct it. If you think there needs to be guidelines in place to make things run smoothly then please make some proposals, i'm just pointing out that our discussion starts from everything is subject to deletion, not the other way 'round.EricR 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I got you ya. You mean convince "the rest of us" as to the general case, not as to a specific deletion. Point taken. --Justanother 17:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Only according to you, EricR. I don't know what you mean with that link, it doesn't appear to apply to the current discussion at all. Perhaps you read "Ability of anyone to edit articles" to mean "Ability of anyone to delete other people's comments on the Ref Desks" ? That's not what it says. The Ref Desks are not "articles", and even in an article, you can't just go and delete things because you feel like it, that's considered vandalism, you still need to have a valid reason. StuRat 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks, trolling, and irrelevant material can be, but rarely are, deleted from talk space. Non-answers and non-questions at the refdesk seem like they'd be equally deletable. Apart from the refdesk regulars, does anyone else think stupid jokes are ok ? If so, I missed it. Carry on the way things are, and sooner or later the rouge admin cabal that runs Wikipedia (no, really) will MfD the refdesk as incurably broken. And as for the poll, well voting is evil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"All views should be retained, and the question asker can then decide which are most relevant to them" - right on sturat! Everyone develops their own answer. We're not telling the OP that "these answers are right" we're telling the OP that "these users each think that their answer is right" and make no guarantee. This is simply the most efficient way to handle such a massive project. --frothT C 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
LightCurrent, you say that deletions should be allowed "under conditions of violation of current WP poilicies". Note that the rules say "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated". So any off-topic discussions are open to deletion by whoever disagrees with what is being said. In the end, when the idea catches on, that will mean that all off-topic discussions will be removed. This is also what SCZenz suggested and that is what I strongly disagree with. That's why I said that maybe if the rules are cahnged I might change my vote. DirkvdM 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I meant WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL etc not the current ref desk 'rules'. I dont believe removal off off topic stuff is covered under a policy. But then again I could be wrong! 8-)
You may also remeber that my 3rd RD guideline was modified to advise keeping to the topic if at all possible.8-)--Light current 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the idea of deleting items from the RD in general. I have done it myself in the past, when there was trolling going on, such as one user who repeatedly posts nonsense about the movie Big Burger (or whatever it's called), and the person who keeps asking us how he should create telenovelas. But unless it's trolling, vandalism, threats, or disruption, then it should stay. I did not then, and do not now, think that Dirk's comment which got deleted was inappropriate. I do think the resulting edit war was silly, and the blocking was entirely inappropriate. But I won't vote in this poll. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Good Burger ? I don't automatically judge repeated posts on the same topic to be trolling. Our good friend user:Kurt Shaped Box has a seagull obsession, for example, but I was still willing to answer his question on them, if I could. BTW, where has Kurt been recently ? I can't help but picture him being killed and eaten by a pack of ravenous seagulls (or is that seagullonous ravens ?) because he didn't bring them enough food. :-) StuRat 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And irrelevant jokes don't fall under any of those headings, Zoe, so they're okay? Warring to restore things that add no content to the page isn't disruption? -- SCZenz 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my comment on the poll above... Since polls can't overturn policy or the wiki process, I'm not voting. -- SCZenz 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding no content is far less harmful than deleting content (however stupid it may appear) 8-)--Light current 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
SCZenz is right, as was EricR. StuRat, you demonstrate here that you don't yet understand how wikipedia works. We don't use parliamentary procedure and call votes on things. Instead, we use the wiki process. Questions about whether removing content from a page is "allowed" are irrelevant- anything can be edited. Irrelevant and/or disruptive content is sometimes removed, and we need no poll to tell us whether this is alright. Of course, there's room for disagreement in specific cases- but let's continue to discuss specific cases as they come up. Trying to declare that editing or removing content from this page isn't allowed won't get anyone to agree with you- it'll only show that you're not getting how things work here. Friday (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So I can remove anything you write? OK And if anyone can delete anything they dont like, then I predict a massive deletion of most of the RDs (at least to start with)-- followed by edit wars on a scale that no one has yet seen the like of 8-((--Light current 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you would ask such a question leads me to seriously wonder whether you should be working on the reference desk at all. If you cannot understand nuance, you cannot effectively edit. Friday (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Whaddy mean nuance? [16]--Light current 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk header change

Since the question annotation idea is only for the science desk, I implemented some wiki logic to make that text only appear on the science desk. On the other desks, a blurb about the new {{strict}} template appears. As per this brief discussion, it also links to an extremely newbie-friendly talk subpage for "actual" user input into the problem. We need to know what non-regulars think about the issue, and this coupled with the possible popularity of the strict tag could give us an idea of where to go from here. This idea is a cousin to the new ref desk idea, but it is exclusive meaning that if this works out we shouldn't have to implement a new desk at all. Also in defense of this way of doing it, it's quite a bit cleaner and more inline than a whole separate desk.

The science desk header, the other headers, and the strict template are demoed here.

Please viciously edit my text. It's probably grammatically wrong in every way and politically incorrect for using the masculine pronoun, so help me out. Also each line seems a bit brief so do try to expand it. But if you disagree on content, reply here; don't just remove stuff.

I did try to skirt the issue of humor in describing strict. The actual template makes it clear not to be frivolous in responding but the focus here is really on professionalism and wikipedia standards as a whole, not just with humor.

Oh and for now I'd like it to stay a good-faith thing of actually trying to offer more professional responses to strict-tagged questions, instead of having to edit other peoples' posts. Editing of other users' posts is a somewhat different matter and still subject to argument, so argue on! This feels like a good step though.

This will not solve the debate about censorship. However it will provide the same feedback about users' feelings about the quality of the reference desk as would a new desk, without the radical change. And who knows, maybe this will make the question of censorship moot.

--frothT C 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. A few points:

1) Since the user won't know how to add that template, we will need to have a way to generate it automatically when they pick a special "Ask a question under strict rules" button. Does anybody know how to add this to the mockup ? StuRat 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2) I think it's time to drop the special intro section for Science that talks about marking good questions with stars. That issue died long ago. StuRat 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

3) We should discuss the meaning of "strict". Here are the possibilities:

  * No jokes.
  * No conversations.
  * No signatures.
  * No off topic remarks.
  * No opinions.
  * No swearing.
  * References are required for all statements of fact.
  * All violations will be immediately deleted.

Of those, I think the consensus is against the "no signature, single collaborative answer" approach. While we all support jokes, in general, I would support a user who specifically requests no jokes. The "no conversations" one means you can only talk to the question asker, not other responders. Perhaps this is too strict, and we should say "no long side conversations", instead ? The "No opinions" rule leaves out many types of questions, but, I suppose that's OK, they just wouldn't use the template when asking for opinions. StuRat 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The templates don't take up much room, so I don't see why we can't show them here:


This user has indicated that they would prefer serious answers and may require references. Please refrain from adding jokes and opinions.


This user wants a more serious answer.
Try to include references in your response and don't use frivolous language.

StuRat 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as for making it simple for users, it's pretty clear the way it is to say "just add {{strict}} to the end of your question." We could do something like this if it's really necessary, but unless we can get a developer to implement checkboxes (for a "Strict" checkbox next to the input box) that wouldn't really work. We could have a separate page for rules but I think everyone knows what I mean when I say serious/strict. Some guidelines might be helpful though; for example, I think that opinion can be valuable enough that it's worth the less encyclopedic nature (see my post here) while others (like sczenz apparently) think it's inappropriate. I like "no conversations" but you should be able to address others' comments (especially if they're wrong!). No signatures is a bad idea. No jokes is a given (although no swearing is kind of arbitrary). For the references thing I wasn't aiming for "all statements of fact"; there's a huge amount of info available at the RD that doesn't necessarily have a source (personal experience is a powerful asset in answering certain types of questions as well). It's just an "if possible, try to use sources because that's probably what the OP is looking for". This whole thing is to help OPs get the information they want the way they want it. If they want verifiability, nonsourced answers can still be valuable to the OP, if only to get general information about the topic.

If you still disagree with any of my points, please counterargue; I'm more than willing to compromise. What I don't want to see is all of the parties "compromising" away from neutral into a position where they fundamentally no longer can agree with it

Oh and can we get some quick consensus on what to do with the "good response annotation" logic? Should the good response annotation message be dropped altogether?

--frothT C 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On my browser, at the font and size I use, it's almost impossible to tell the curly brackets from parens, I think there's only one pixel diff between them. Users might have the same problem. StuRat 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be a bit more modest. The raised hand may scare people off (both the questioner and answerers). About the text, why use third person. Why not more direct? What about the following:
Please keep answers to this question serious. So no frivolous responses or off-topic discussions please.


Note that I changed the name of the template to 'serious', which seems more appropriate. Maybe the exclamation marks could be made in red and a bit less tall, but that's a detail. Also, it can't be placed in-line, which might be confusing for some. It even has to be on a separate line. I've also left out the references bit. Let's not pile too much on this and stick to the issue at hand.
Also, why would this not solve the issue of deletions? If people don't put in this template, they obviously don't mind off-topic discussions and such. DirkvdM 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought the issue was with people who wanted a formal, verifyable answer without seeing a ton of BS and off topic chat build up in their discussion, not with just joking responses. Any other input on this? This should be settled immediately. Also if you don't like the do not enter sign, thats fine but find a different icon to get peoples attention. --163.11.83.18 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by froth (talk • contribs).
How about any of these? Then of course there's all the vote images too --frothT C 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Or these: They get across the idea of just informing you about the user's indication instead of "stopping" you to get you to read it. Is this more what you had in mind? --frothT C 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the "i"'s have it. (Although I would personally like an icon of a nun wapping a student on the hands with a ruler, to convey the "strict" meaning in pictorial form.) :-) StuRat 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
All right the SVG looked better so I went with that. The old one can still be seen with {{strict|old}}. I left strict2 the way it is; maybe that could be used for more attention-grabbing situations like if discussion is getting off topic on a strict post (strict2 is centered as well so it's very visible).


This user has indicated that they would prefer serious answers and may require references. Please refrain from adding jokes and opinions.


--frothT C 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a link to the strict rules directly in the template. StuRat 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea --163.11.83.18 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by froth (talk • contribs).

Fridays idea

Note: I did not start this as a section. This was in response to other discussion. But for whatever reason, people have taken to moving things around and creating lots of new sections. Friday (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple idea: let's assume anyone posting a RD question wants a useful answer. So, we give useful answers. If a question seems obviously not serious, we ignore it or remove it. Friday (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Trouble is in telling the diff! For instance there was a question about HRT that someone deleted as frivolous. I believed it was serious so I put it back 8-)--Light current 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just assume all of Friday's suggestions are trolling and ignore them, like his idea of removing the Ref Desk entirely. StuRat 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(flamebait disregarded) Serious or not, there are some questions we should not attempt to answer. Questions that only call for an opinion, for example, may not be answerable in any encyclopedic way. In some but not all of those cases, we may be able to refer the questioner to an article covering major opinions on the issue at hand. Questions asking for medical advice I think are in a similar category- we should never attempt to provide medical advice to anyone. As a general rule we should IMO answer questions by referring folks to the appropriate articles, not by giving our own original research and personal opinions. But, it's possible I take a more fundamentally encyclopedic approach to the RD than do most of the editors who are active here. I realize the RD pages are more like a project pages or talk pages than thdey are like articles, but our core goals and principals should still apply. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- the reference desk should support that goal, not contradict it. Friday (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, since you've now managed to make a serious comment, I will give it a serious response: Many questions do not have answers within Wikipedia. For some, we find the answers with a Google search. Other answers we know from personal experience. And before you start yelling that "no original research" crap, let me give an example. Somebody posts a phrase they need help translating either from or to English on the Language Ref Desk. I suppose you can call translations "original research", but there's absolutely no reason to ban this type of useful answer from the Ref Desk. StuRat 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Now we're into the question of the scope of the RD. Is it part of Wikipedia? In my opinion, the answer is a loud, resounding, obvious yes. I suspect the foundation folks would say the exact same thing, since hosting this is using up their resources. Could the RD reflect poorly on Wikipedia? You betcha it could- yet another reason for the RD to share the same core goals and policies as the rest of the project. If you want a general purpose questions-and-answers website where personal opinions are appropriate and encyclopedic standards are irrelevant, this sounds like an interesting idea- feel free to try it out somewhere. But, the English Wikipedia is not that somewhere. Think about the library reference desk analogy for a moment- if you walked into a real library and asked the reference desk for medical advice, or creative new ideas for your school play, how do you think they'd respond? We don't need to field any and every question that someone may ask- we could easily define our goals here more narrowly than that, and stick to what's at least somewhat relevant to the project. Friday (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If I walked into a library and asked the Ref Desk librarian for some info, and they didn't have it in the library, they wouldn't yell at me that my question is inappropriate and tell me to leave, they would look for the info elsewhere. In the translation example, they would translate the phrase directly, if they could, or would refer me to somebody who could do a translation. If we define the Ref Desk as only a way to find info already in Wikipedia, it won't help us to improve Wikipedia (by finding missing info we should add) and the users will form a very poor opinion of Wikipedia by having their questions constantly deleted rather than answered. StuRat 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, yesterday I was reading through the Developer-written pages buried in the WP namespace and I found a blurb that says something like "the cost of cpu cycles and database space for a single page or project is so infintesimal (and difficult to define) that editors never ever have to worry about projects consuming Foundation resources.
Whoever suggested changing the name from {{strict}} to {{serious}} We don't want people to get the wrong idea about this- we're not saying that if you don't use the tag you won't get a serious answer (just jokes or flames or something), but that editor response will be more formal and verifyable, and won't use any jokes or flames at all. That's also kind of where I was going with the references thing too. References are a bit much to ask, but they're not required and if it's possible to give them they're very very helpful, especially for users seeking a more formal answer --frothT C 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's stick with "strict". StuRat 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

LCs idea (again)

I prefer the concept of a 'General' RD as the first point of contact for a questioner. This would be a strict desk , but in depth answers couls be dealt with on the existing specific desks. A bit like being invited into the back office for more in depth comments/help/advice! Comments?--Light current 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, ummm, half the questions aren't signed, but we can assume they'll use a "strict" tag. Uh-uh, I just don't buy it. Let me ask a question: Have any of the people who actually post questions complained or made suggestions that indicate the need to change the Ref Desk significantly? -THB 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But perhaps some of the critical users could point us toward some actual cases?--Light current 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've received private email from a user who was made uncomfortable by an inappropriate comment; I don't know of that user had asked any questions, but I do know that this page has many readers beyond the question-askers. -- SCZenz 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Would you care to say in what way the user was made uncomfortable?--Light current 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that someone had volunteered information about their personal masturbation habits; that sounds like a fair reason to be uncomfortable to me. -- SCZenz 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm I dont remember that one, but presumably it was in response to a question in the same vein? Whether the response was appropriate, I cannot say. I just dont know if we should ban talking about our personal experiences when answering questions. THat could cut out a lot of useful info. 8-)--Light current 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But not any factual info from reliable sources. I think, at least, that some extra discretion is called for when volunteering personal experiences. -- SCZenz 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah discretion! Some people think they have more than others!--Light current 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe it was this one? Anchoress 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
HMMM! Thank you for digging that one out. 8-)--Light current 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The primary complaint of that e-mail would seem to be discussion of certain sexual matters on the Ref Desk, with the implied suggestion that we should censor certain sexual content. That's an issue which has been discussed here, however, with some, like user:Anchoress, arguing that sexual matters are a legitimate item for discussion. I did suggest a Sexuality Ref Desk, so that such questions could be dealt with there only, thus protecting the rest of the readers from having to read about things they find to be distasteful. As for masturbation, it's both covered in Wikipedia proper and a category of questions where users would very much appreciate the ability to ask and get answers in an anonymous manner. Thus, we can do a lot of good by handling such questions here, in my opinion. StuRat 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

SCZenz, I am curious about that e-mail, the exact wording, why it was sent to you instead of posted here, etc. That being said, I'm using the "Would that offend my 70 year old prudish mother?" Test of Offensiveness. I'm not sure she would have been able to pick up on the joke; it was quite subtle. Certainly the word "masturbation" was not used, nor any synonym. It is plausibly deniable that such a reference was even intended. (see above) There have certainly been other things posted that offended even me. (They weren't sexual.) Of course, the community consensus on Wikipedia seems to be that any sort of censorship of potentially offensive material, except maybe for pedophilia or libel, is unacceptable. -THB 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand why some users expect that an offended user will necessarily know how to, and feel comfortable with, posting a concern on this arcane, cluttered talk page. It's up to us to make a front-end Wikipedia page like this welcoming; we shouldn't just do whatever we want until someone complains. In any case, the user I received the comment from apparently did get the fairly blunt reference, and apparently was unhappy about it. Community consensus is certainly against censorship of articles... but what I am saying here is that gratuitous sexual jokes are an aggrivating factor when judging the appropriateness of off-topic comments. -- SCZenz 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree with the last sentence, emphasizing the word "gratuitous" as key. How did they even e-mail you? I don't know how to e-mail other Wikipedia users. -THB 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If a user has their email enabled, you can go to their user page, and you'll find an "Email this user" link under toolbox on the left-hand bar. If you did this from my page, it would lead you to Special:Emailuser/SCZenz. -- SCZenz 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see it, on the "skin" I chose it's at the bottom. Have you found having your e-mail enabled to be abused? -THB 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia_talk%7EReference_desk_Archive_15_2da4.html"