Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Vandalism/censoring of mildly critical comments

In my questions "Raised churchyard graves" and "Farmhouse or Hall" I posted replies querying if modern American or contemporary Guatemalan practice really had any bearing on practice in England two or three centuries or more ago, as the American (?) posters seemed to think. There replies were not at all offensive but part of normal debate.

There replies were removed, as were my further brief comments wondering where my replies had gone.

So who or what removed them please? Surely this is at least against etiquette? It rather sinister if one cannot debate the subject.

Reading the comments to those questions, I'm surpised and saddened that most of the commentators seemed oblivious to, or refuse to accept, the idea that contemporary practice in American etc is unlikely to be extrapolatable to England of centuries ago. I tried to make this comment on the page. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, now I've noticed your debate above. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, it was just Bugs being over-vigilant. He's a good sort really. You didn't have to bring the whole Atlantic divide into it, by the way: it's just that there's a strong compulsion for a well-meaning answerer to charge in and say something irrelevant that they know about, rather than say nothing. Happens all the time, people trying to make things fit the question that come from the wrong century or the wrong country. You can call it fluff, or froth, or something, and we try to reduce it, but it will always happen, and anyway sometimes it's interesting. No need to suggest that Americans are ignorant about foreign cultures, which is no more true a stereotype than the one that says us Brits have bad teeth (both things seem to me to be very slightly true, but are highly subjective and somewhat forgivable, and don't need mentioning). 81.131.0.64 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the above and below sections have both been closed for comment, let me do so here. If I was mistaken in seeing that something had been deleted when it had not been, then I'm sorry.

I'm disapointed that none of the text below discusses the request/suggestion that Baseball Bugs is given a temporary or longer ban for deleting other peoples responses. The responses were part of the normal discussion of politely querying wether someone's assertion is true or relevant. Not just deleting people's postings, but deleting other people's brief querying of what had happened to their missing postings as well, so that the casual reader could not even tell that something had been deleted. As far as I recall there was another similar request or complaint along these lines that has rolled off the top of the page. His stated reason was that they were anti-American (like McCarthyism), but this is not true. I think the real reason is that he does not like anything that could be interpreted as mild criticism of himself or of his nation, and as I was an unregistered editor, he felt safe in deleting it, 1984-style. I confirm that I have been contributing to Wikipedia for years, and I do not wish to register as I do not want to get involved with personalities, such as this episode.

I know which postings of mine have been deleted. To the casual reader you would never even know I had made them. Has Baseball Bugs been doing this with other people's postings that he does not like also?

The other less significant bad behaviours are 1) making irrelvant postings that divert the discussion away from the subject, and 2) trying to make (unfunny) jokes. I do hope that these pages can be prevented from insidiously descending into a bear-pit where only "bears" want to be, as has been the fate of so many other forums. Thanks 92.28.242.164 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I would support a temporary ban, although knowing this editor such a sanction would be unlikely to have any long-term effect on his behaviour. --Viennese Waltz 11:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have an effect on his behaviour, but even if it did not it would at least give us some relief during the ban. 92.15.19.232 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the "removed a question" below, zapping apparent trolling is not so unusual. Meanwhile, I was advised to be more careful about deletions, and I have taken that advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There was not any "apparent trolling". 92.15.19.232 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about that other IP user's comments? Well, to me they looked like trolling. Hence the term "apparent". However, if you think that other user's comments add value to the discussion, then go ahead and add them back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Physiology and common sense

Riddle me this. Someone stated a self-observed fact about his own body and asked for explanation. He got answers, apparently good ones. For some reason he wasn't immediately pilloried and censured as a vile seeker of forbidden medical advice. I would not have thought that possible. Am pleased with the outcome, but puzzled. Are the self-appointed defenders of whatever-it-is-they-defend asleep? –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a restriction on providing information about anatomy and physiology. As far as I read the question, Wnt was most interested in the mechanics of jaw movements ("the mechanics mystify me"). The best answer pointed out the article on the temporomandibular joint. This seems perfectly appropriate to me. If Wnt had asked something like "my jaw suddenly popped out of joint, what should I do?" or "what is causing the jaw pain that I'm having?" that would be different and subject to the usual restrictions on medical advice. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But he did ask (only very slightly paraphrased) "what is causing the restricted jaw movement I'm experiencing?". If the first editor to respond had instead blanked the question and replaced it with "medical question removed -- go see a doctor if you think your failure to move your jaw in certain directions may indicate a medical problem", wouldn't the overwhelming consensus here be that the removal was proper, and that the OP's protestations of mere curiosity was just as "guise" for asking a medical question? –Henning Makholm (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Although he stated it in first-person, to me it reads like he's asking a more general question. Also, he's an established editor as opposed to someone coming in from nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of personal details does raise the legitimate question of whether Wnt was asking an "is this normal" type of question, which would not be appropriate for us to answer, because it would require some type of examination or other evaluation of whether there was truly abnormal jaw movement involved. But I don't get the sense that Wnt thinks his jaw movement is "restricted" in any pathological sense but rather in the sense that any given joint has certain range of motion restrictions. If another editor had removed the question I would have thought it was a little excessive but I probably wouldn't have argued very strongly against it. In general, it probably would have been better phrased to say something like "in my understanding, the human jaw can move front to back and side to side but cannot rotate left to right -- can someone explain the biomechanics of the jaw to me?" --- Medical geneticist (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the usual criterion is not whether the poster himself thinks his observation points to anything pathological, but whether it is logically conceivable at all that his observations could possibly be symptoms of something dangerous, whether or not any real condition they could be symptoms of exists, or is known to anyone on the refdesk. The usual argument is that it doesn't even matter whether what he writes is or is not objectively abnormal, because he might conceivably have a real medical problem with his jaw and just have failed to describe his symptoms clearly enough for them to be discernible from the text he wrote. Therefore, if he were allowed to read on the refdesk that his description sounds normal, he might be deterred from seeing a doctor about the jaw and we could suddenly all wake up to headlines of "Victim Of Gnathal Agnotosis Sought Advice From Wikipedia, Was Told Not To Worry". I don't think much of this line of reasoning, but I sincerely thought it was so entrenched in consensus that it surprises me it's not being used here. I must have misunderstood the boundaries of its application. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it as a question along the same lines as, "Why can't I bend my knee backwards?" which is not just him, but pretty much everybody, unless they've had their knees severely damaged somehow. In any case, Wnt is a frequenter of this page, so he might offer some clarification at some point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the past, everyone else who asked such questions have been silenced with the argument that even confirming or denying whether it is normal for knees to bend backwards would constitute a medical diagnosis and therefore be verboten ... I'm not complaining that this rule has apparently changed, though. Or was it always the case that "I presume I'm typical" were the magic words that let the speaker get away with asking physiological questions that are off limits to the hoi polloi? –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think Wnt's question is in fact a request for medical advice as opposed to simply "How does the body work?", feel free to argue for its removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of us on here can tell the difference. Can you really not, or are you just trying to make a point? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If I were going to break WP:POINT, I would have removed the thread and instructed Wnt to see a medical professional, rather than start a talk page thread. I really don't see what separates this from many other cases where a poster was also (clearly, to me) just trying to satisfy idle curiosity, but was told to go bother a doctor instead. –Henning Makholm (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to box the other editors' comments and advise the OP to see a doctor. ("Bother" does not compute. Doctors get paid for their services.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was clearly an anatomy question. If you replace "me" and "I" with "You" or "Someone" you still have the same question. APL (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes questions have been closed as medical, even though the questioner believed they were asking a generic question about a normal condition, and just trying to establish biological facts - I remember this happening at least once. Possibly it was a question a while back about cold wrists which was framed in this way.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think reference deskers agree that they share a very basic knowledge of what is medically normal, and are willing to make assertions to questioners about it, too, provided the assertions don't appear even slightly controversial (or especially knowledgeable) to anyone.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

removed a question

I have removed a question. Let it be known henceforth that I intend to take a zero-tolerance approach to any further pointless questions from that IP. Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As a question, it seems harmless enough, though a bit odd. What's the history with that Kansas IP range? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(See below first) IIRC they're the one who wants to go to India to get their braces (asked twice, claimed it wasn't them despite similar IPs same geolocations/ISP); really, really like bidets/Japanese toilets and feel the need to convince us/everyone else of that; all their friends are holding grudges; for this and other reasons may want to join the South Korean airforce (being part? Korean); are worried the US economy is going to collapse; for this and I think the earlier reasons may want to move overseas to escape their student loan; may become homeless some time in the future but will keep their laptop and brilliant skills so need to find ways to make money; need to find ways to make money anyway with their brilliant skills (or something); and I'm pretty sure plenty of other things I can't recall off the top of my head. P.S. I'm only mentioning what I recall them having said in the past, please don't presume I'm saying any of those things are true or false or that this is a personal attack on them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Sounds all too familiar now. Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't check the diff until now. The IP I am thinking of was the 70.179.169.x one. They also Geolocate to Kansas (the other one is a uni IP) and they're asking similar questions at the moment so I'm guessing it's the same person but I haven't looked enough to link them myself and I don't recall having made the connection before. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so there may be some uncertainty. I'm hoping Looie will step in here and shed some additional light on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly the same editor as 70.179.169.115 (talk · contribs), whose last question was also some nonsense about fireplaces. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit irked how much time we waste debating whether somebody's question is legitimate. Ultimately, our Reference Desk mission-statement says it all: we are a reference desk. So, let's template up something along these lines:

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. This is a resource to assist Wikipedians who are seeking encyclopedic references. Questions that do not fall into this category will be deleted.

This is very simple and polite; we don't need to waste time debating whether the OP is wasting our time. Nimur (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How would that change anything? The legitimacy of "I hope to find some objective stats on calories burned while doing various activities, including cleaning a fireplace. Also, links would help." doesn't have to do with whether or not the questioner is asking for encyclopedic references. Taken literally as written, it's asking for encyclopedic references. Looie's claim in removing it is not that the question wasn't asking for encyclopedic references, it's that the questioner was just wasting peoples' time and didn't actually care about the answer. Most of the "is it legitimate or isn't it" debate is similar situations - they hinge not on whether the question is seeking encyclopedic references, but instead on whether or not the questioner is trolling or attempting to waste peoples' time. From my point of view, most of the back-and-forth in such debates is due to the uncertainty of people trying to mind-read the intents of posters: "Is he or isn't he honestly looking for an answer?" (as well as "Is he asking about pathophysiology of boils out of general interest, or because he wants medical advice about his own boil?") Saying that we only answer requests for encyclopedic references won't change the fact that people will bicker over whether or not the request for encyclopedic references was genuine or not. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be worth a try. The worst that would happen is that it would be ignored, so we'd be no worse off, and someone might actually pay attention to it. Speaking of which, dealing with these trolls often depends on someone paying sufficient attention to patterns to realize when we're being trolled. In this particular case, if this had been the only question the guy had ever asked, it was at least in theory somewhat answerable, maybe by finding a chart about burning calories for various kinds of activities, although I have doubts that such a chart would include the activities of a chimney sweep. However, Looie recognized the pattern and tossed it into the bit bucket. And his reporting of it here served an educational purpose, in raising our level of alertness to that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying no to any proposal to add reasons for deletion. And a template isn't necessary - who will even remember what the name of it is? It's sufficient just to say what is said above, in plain language. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not support the introduction proposed above. The reason is that although the reference desk is functionally a place to seek references for Wikipedia articles, most anonymous editors probably realize neither this nor the definition of "Wikipedians". Although I agree that the aforementioned series of questions seems pointless, we should refrain from removing any AGF questions even if deemed unencyclopedic as we do not currently have as strigent of WP:NOT restrictions for the refdesk as we do for article space, and it would be more productive only to remove questions deemed innappropriate trolling by consensus (except obvious cases). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the trolls think they're doing the right thing. AGF is meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. If you disagree with a basic founding principle of a community you choose to spend time in, you might find it less frustrating to find a community that doesn't operate under or enforce that principle, rather than spending energy informing that community that a basic principle of all activities in that community is 'meaningless'. 212.183.128.14 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting massive unsummarized deletion

Is there an editor who is both able and willing to revert this massive unsummarized deletion?
—Wavelength (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. I'm willing to grant Hanlon's razor as the explanation for this one; looks like some IP editor edited an old version from the history and screwed things up horibly. I put things back the way they were, and re-added any material that had been added by other editors since this weirdness. All is well.--Jayron32 05:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Scsbot not working?

Hi. I've numerous times had to manually add the Level 1 Header for the current or a past date because the bot did not add the heading, leaving the section 20-something questions over a two-day span, and I suspect that the bot has a glitchlag. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons, the portion of the bot that adds date headers is not quite as reliable as the portion of the bot that does the actual archiving. (The actual archiving, by the way, is not done based on the date headers.) And for various other reasons, this has never been a high priority of mine to fix, but I'll see if there's something I can do. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

removal.

This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page. Diff APL (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I have also BOLDly removed the triggering comment, <redacted>. That comment is every bit as off-topic as my comments which you removed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) ... and I was BOLD and removed an inflammatory (likely) mischaracterization of the comment. Let's keep it civil, people. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) <redacted> OK, <redacted> OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I've been BOLD and removed part of Bug's previous comment. Partially because it's his usual bashing of Anon users, but mostly for comedy value. APL (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The usual double-standard among the ref desk clique - anon's can take shots at anyone and seldom suffer any slings and arrows. Maybe I should start editing via my IP so I could get the clique to defend me if I act like a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC) If the IP had tried to start a political debate, or to "get in the last word" after it had been made clear it was inappropriate I would have deleted the comment outright, instead of deleting part of it for comedy value. If you take offense at my light-hearted attitude feel free to say so, but if your problem is that you weren't allowed to make tangential political jibes, then frankly I believe that, as a long-time named ref-desker, you are getting deferential treatment that an IP editor would not receive. If the number of politically charged snipes, off-topic remarks, and jokes that appear as though they might be legitimate answers to anyone who doesn't 'get' them, came from a consistent IP address, I'd be here advocating that it simply be banned and save everyone the trouble. I suspect you'd be right behind me on that. (Of course, I always advocate the Scientific Method. You've got your hypothesis. Now try an experiment! Anyone can log out for a week and edit as an IP.) APL (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The other editor chose to make an off-topic political statement, and I chose not to let it stand unchallenged. But don't be so sure of what I actually do take offense at, nor of what my complete views on capital punishment are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, I got even BOLDer and removed the rest of it, again partially for comedy value, but also because I'd hate to let Bugs provoke a political debate by trying to "get in the last word". APL (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Concur with APL's removal. Concur on the content of Bugs' counter-removal, disagree on Bugs being the one to make that removal, definitely not happy that it was a stealth edit to the comment. That misrepresents what User:Marco polo posted and is heavily frowned upon here, as I'm sure the participants are aware. — Lomn 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC) How does it misrepresent his statement? The factual part remains. The editorial comment has no relevance to the factual part. I could have removed the "proud" part and merely left the comment that he lives in one of the 14 (as do I, by the way), but even that has no particular relevance to the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC) You did not note that you had altered his signed comment. However, I now find your repeated willful continuance of poor behavior and/or judgment during this issue to be the item of greatest concern. You should not have removed MP's words yourself (it looks bad, given that your comment had just been removed). You should not have removed MP's words without specific notice of having done so (per widespread RD and WP consensus). You should not have dragged your longstanding feud with IP editors into this discussion (see dead horse, thataway). You should not have continued your baiting comments regarding MP, who's not even in this discussion, below. And I shouldn't have to lay this out, because you've been here for years and shouldn't need this sort of babysitting. There was a very simple solution to all this when you saw MP's original comment, and that is to redact the "proud" bit and make a note of "let's please avoid the political aspects of capital punishment, thanks" or the like. You chose a course of action bearing no resemblance to a simple solution. — Lomn 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC) No one notified me, either. I merely happened to see it here. Nor did anyone else seem interested in removing the equally-off-topic comments of Mr. Polo. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that the clique's double-standard is alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC) This may sound like a radical idea, but how about if Marco himself speaks up instead of everyone here speaking for him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) What?!? You've tried to speak for him twice in this thread alone. It was deleted both times. APL (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC) < Three Times! --apl > I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) You keep deleting my comments. Do they hit too close to home for your comfort level? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) No. APL (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Then there's no logical explanation other than the old "I don't like it" argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't care what you're arguing about. Take a break, relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)