Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 23:01, 8 December 2006 editStuRat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers88,546 edits →How is the ref desk any different than the help desk or village pump pages← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,426 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 133) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div>
	<div style="color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;"><div style="font-size:150%;">'''This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only.'''</div>Please post general questions on the relevant ].<br>Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.</div>
			<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|||{{pp|small=no}}}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}}
			{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes |collapsed=yes| age=7 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |
			{{center|''']'''
	{| class="infobox" width="270px"
			{{flatlist|
	|-
			* ]
	!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
			* ]
	----
			* ]
	|-
	|]		* ]
	|]		* ]
			}}
	|-
			}}
	|]
			}}
	|]
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|-
			|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	|]
			|maxarchivesize = 256K
	|]
			|counter = 133
	|-
			|minthreadsleft = 4
	|]
			|algo = old(7d)
	|]
			|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
	|-
			}}
	|]
			__FORCETOC__
	|]
	|-
	|]
	|]
	|-
	|]
	|]
	|-
	|]
	|]
	|-
			== Unreadable in dark mode ==
	|colspan="2"|
	----
	|-
	|align="center" colspan="2"|]
	|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
	__TOC__
			Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but ] is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
	== '''{{User|RefDeskBot}}''' ==
			:It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	Putting aside all the squabbling for a second, has anyone else noticed that {{User|RefDeskBot}} has been down since '''December 2nd''' and no one even noticed? --] 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			::See ] @] ] (]) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. ] (]) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. <small> (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.)</small> -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
			:Thank you ] and ]! Looks great now. ] (]) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
			::Great! <span style="background:white; color: black;">🐸</span>&nbsp;] (]) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
			== Humanities and header hatnote ==
	*<s>''' Emergency!! RD Bot off line '''</s> {{unsigned|Light current}}
			Last week, ] decided to to the humanities desk, and then ] decided to a few days later. Here's the content:
	It's not an emergency, I talked to Martin and the Bot will be back up tonight--] 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{redirect|WP:RD/H|the template header used in all areas of the ]|WP:Reference desk/Header}}
	:It does seem to be getting a bit long, but that's only two days ago, not time to panic yet (when exactly is the proper time to panic, anyway ?). ] 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was . So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. ] (]) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
	::I think the longest any one desk has ever gotten was about 3500 KB or 3.5 MB, so anything short of that probably isn't going to break wikipedia, at least going on past experiences--] 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --] 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
	I'm tearing my hair out here - my internet's being really unstable :(, but the bot is runnng now, slowly :). Thanks <strong>]]]</strong> 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			:No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for ] they probably know how to find it. ] (]) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
			== Bots ==
	:Cool, thanks. ] 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words ] (]) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
	::Done :D. If it misses just one day, it would help hugely if you could tell me on my talk page, so I can run a job and start the bot up again, rather than waiting 'til I notice :) <strong>]]]</strong> 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Where did you see that? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			== Fake Desi media content querant ==
	:::Will do. ] 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.)
	== I feel comment is inappropriate ==
			Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
	It's not funny, it's off-topic, it adds nothing to the RD or the project, and as a woman I'm offended by it. ] 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)		:Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --] 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			::The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --] 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree; gender-based generalizations are insulting to everyone, and certainly do not constitute facts. I'll '''ask''' the user to remove it, if you haven't already. -- ] 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I already removed it. Perhaps this was ''too'' bold, but removing it seemed appropriate to me. Obviously irrelevant. ] ] 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't believe it is irrelevant. The subject is the motivation for subjects to pose in certain ways. As such, the motivation of women who pose for pornographic photos is related. (Of course, the motivation is quite obvious if they are paid, but less so otherwise.) ] 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I was about to amend it. But obviously you couldnt wait.--] 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	=== THB comment ===
	:::Assuming that it should have been removed, I strongly feel that Light current should have been given the chance to remove it himself, that it was not quite offensive enough to remove on sight, maybe because it was not intended to be nasty or trolling. I'm confused about the Ref Desk as far as the practice of editing others' comments as is done in articles. I was under the impression that it functioned more in the manner of a talk page (in the manner of, not as) in that it is considered rude to mess with other people's contributions. -] 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::If we're bringing back the talk page analogy, see ]: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." It may be polite to give people a chance to remove inappropriate comments, but it is by no means required. When the remark is more impolite than the removal, well, Friday's decision was quite reasonable. -- ] 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This is also on the Talk page guidelines page:
	::::::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.
	::::: -] 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I've been through this at great length with StuRat; it's simply not true that "refrain from editing others' comments" contradicts the part of the guideline I cited. I would never dream of editing someone's comments to change their meaning, but I would in some cases remove off-topic comments, and that's allowed. -- ] 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:In many circumstances, I'd agree that asking the author to edit their own comments might be a good thing. However I chose not to do that in this case- I have seen enough similarly inappropriate comments from Light current that I cannot trust his own judgment on what is or is not appropriate. Since he doesn't know how to make his own edits appropriate, I did it for him. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but that's the situation here. ] ] 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It was certainly not meant to be offensive to anyone, just an observation on what power photographers have over their subjects. Obviously some took it to be offensive. Offensiveness when not intended is not always obvious to the poster. 8-(--] 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	It wasn't completely off-topic, as the topic is various poses favored by photographers (specifically, smiling versus not smiling). As such, the '']'' pose of lifting their shirts for the camera seems closely related, to me. ] 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Actually, StuRat, I was going to give the Girls Gone Wild thing as an example as well, but I don't feel comfortable actually '''supporting''' the comment that was removed. I did reflect on it when I first saw it but never thought about removing it or asking for it to be removed, it just wasn't at that level. -] 04:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It seems to me there is a wide gulf between supporting a post and calling for it's removal. There are many, many posts which I don't personally support, but whose removal I would nevertheless oppose. This reminds me of the quote: "I may not agree with what you said, but I will fight to the death your right to say it." This, apparently, is the diff between me and the numerous deletionists we have accumulated here, who often seem to want to delete anything they don't personally agree with. ] 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I support your right to say whatever you want on your own website. The servers our comments are hosted by belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- ] 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's rather rude, basically telling me to "get lost"/"shove off"/"clear off". Try to be more civil. Or, perhaps I should reply in kind, and suggest that you go create your own website, where you can be the absolute dictator and delete anything you don't like. ] 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::It's not rude. It's a basic statement that you don't seem to be grasping- free speech arguments are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. This is essentially private property - the foundation owns it. They ''do'' get to decide how it's used, and the purpose of this website is to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech. ] ] 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::They get to decide, not you. ] 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's not at all what I intended; I didn't mean anything personal at all. I was rather using the impersonal "you," just as in the quote you gave. The point is, political free speech rights do not extend to websites owned by others. The Wikimedia Foundation has a fundamental principle of ] and the community has agreed that ]. Thus your arguments and quotes from philosophers about political free speech are irrelevant. -- ] 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::A certain degree of Free Speech is allowed on talk page, including the Ref Desk. ] 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::That "degree of Free Speech" should ''not'' include off-topic conterfactual sexist generalizations. -- ] 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::It's not "off-topic", as the discussion is about the motivation of subjects to pose in "unnatural" ways. It's not "counterfactual sexual generalization", as some women are willing to pose in such ways. Had it claimed that ALL women are willing to do so, then you would be correct. "Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." ] 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I want to point out (not assuming the comments above regard me), but I didn't call for the deletion of the entry. I was given to understand when we have a problem with an entry, posting concerns here is the best action, so that's what I did. ] 05:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It is, but only after you've discussed the issue in a civil manner with the author (on their talk page), and gotten no results in that manner. ] 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Oh, well I'm not going to do that with LC, so if I have a problem with his edits I'll be bringing them here. ] 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::(Response to Anchoress after ed. conflict)
	::Yes, achieving consensus is the rule for the website hosted on the servers that belong to Wikimedia Foundation. -]
	05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::How is that a response to me? ] 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I was agreeing with your statement and expanding on it. Deletion is not the process, it's discussion and achieving census. -] 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The same page ] says this:
	:::::Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Misplaced Pages can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted.
	::::Also, I do not believe that Light current is "testing the limits of anarchy". -] 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::But Misplaced Pages is ''still'' not a forum for unregulated free speech. Pages have purposes. -- ] 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If I was an anarchist why would I have spent so much time contributing to articles over the past 16 months ''before'' coming here. I would have gone straight to the policy pages and tried to undermine them. Thats how to be an anarchist:destroy all the rules. I am actually pro rules. I just like to know what they are thats all.--] 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Agreement on removal===
	I agree that it should have been removed, but by Light current, and perhaps not at all if even after this discussion he had decided to leave it. It was not completely off-topic, nor blantantly offensive, to the degree that it needed to be censored by deletion on sight. -] 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed. ] 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	I think I finally figured out what bothers me about the removal: it implies that if asked, reasonably and with explanation, the presumption is that Light current would not have removed it himself. -]
	::I would certainly have at least amended it to remove the emphasis on females since it apparently cuased offence to one of the RD editors.--] 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed again. Unnecessary escalation is both rude and nonproductive. The proper procedure should be followed:
	:1) First, mention the post on the author's talk page, and politely list your objection, and request that they remove it.
	:2) If they refuse, and if the comment is so outrageous as to warrant further action, then bring it up here, again politely.
	:3) If a consensus is reached here to remove it, then the author can again be given the opportunity to remove the comment. At this, point, however, once community consensus exists that it should be removed, other members of the community may delete the comment, if the author refuses.
	:4) If, and only if, the author replaces the comment three times, should an Admin be summoned, via a 3RR violation complaint. ] 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There are also grounds for a "speedy deletion" by anyone, such as death threats, etc., but only the most severe cases warrant such actions. And, even in these cases, the author should still be notified of the deletion (on their talk page) and the reason (policy violations) given. ] 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::HMM seems fair enough.--] 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Perhaps we should also discuss the reasons to do things according to the above procedure:
	a) To be polite. Politeness goes a long way.
	b) To avoid "revert wars". (If a comment is removed without consensus having been reached to do so, then the author is entirely justified to disagree with the opinion of the person who removed it and restore the comment.)
	c) To avoid a POV bias in the removals. For example, a politically liberal editor might tend to delete any slightly off topic politically conservative comments, and vice-versa, even though they would leave such comments in if they were more in line with their political ideology. This could escalate to having all liberal statements removed by conservatives, and vice-versa, even if entirely on-topic.
	d) To avoid personal vendettas in the removals. That is "you removed my post, so I'll remove yours". If a consensus is required for such removals, this type of petty behavior is unlikely.
	] 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Hmm seems eminently sensible so far. Are you feeling quite well Stu? 8-)--] 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, sounds very well thought out and reasonable. That's the way I thought it worked already, anyway. -] 06:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Ah theoretically maybe. But its just what we need to codify so that everyones singing from the same hymn sheet--] 06:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Agree on purpose===
	I also agree that pages have a purpose and the purpose is not unregulated free speech. I also believe that instead of strict rules, self-restraint and peer discussion are preferable and more in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. -] 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed, with the provision that the question asker can request "strict rules" by including the template. Otherwise, they should not apply. ] 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::You never know Stu, some people may actually prefer the strict regime!--] 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Sprechen ze Deutsche? ]
	=== $0.02 ===
	Somebody came over to my talk page and suggested I weigh in. The Reference desk isn't as encyclopedic as the rest of Misplaced Pages. It's a place where people feel free to come and ask questions, including questions they would feel kind of silly about asking in real life. Some of the posts don't qualify as real questions and get deleted or ignored, but something that's on topic - even if it's poorly worded and reads like it endorses a prejudice - is probably better left on the page. Post beneath it to your heart's content: skewer its ignorance and demonstrate how foolish it is. Be so witty that people laugh out loud when they read the page That idea is out there in the world and deletion won't challenge it, but real open discussion of ''why'' something isn't worth valuing might change some minds. So somebody wants to discuss ''Girls Gone Wild'' (I roll my eyes and groan as I type that), go ahead and ask that. The videos sell to the kind of mentality that gapes and mutters ''b - o - o - b - i - e - s'' and probably drools on the floor because they ''can't get close to a genuine woman.'' A fair number of women stay away from guys who go for that sort of thing, not because these women are prudes but because they think those guys are idiotic. Okay, 'nuff said. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree, I support the idea of assuming good faith both from those who ask and those who answer questions. If something can be interpreted two ways, assume it was meant in the best way, not the worst. ] 10:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You're missing the point entirely. The discussion here is habitual question-answers, who ought to know better, using the reference desk as a discussion forum. For example, in the case of the allusion to Girls Gone Wild and similar, a user had asked a simple question about smiling in photographs; there was no sexual content to the question whatsoever, but there ''was'' sexual content to the reply. I don't think people will feel "free to come and ask questions" if, no matter what they ask, they might be interrupted for a penis joke or a rant on an editor's personal views. ], ], and ]. Can you do a more careful reading of the issues here and consider addressing them more directly? -- ] 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:If someone asks a factual question about ], we should of course answer it. -- ] 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I respect what you're saying. I've also read the thread at ]. I responded to the post deletion without comment on the related ] question, which several administrators had already treated with due consideration. I don't think this editor is deliberately trolling (and I use that word seldom even in the negative sense). Poor judgement, yes. I have a reputation for being slow to abandon ] and so far I think this is someone who's trying to be a positive contributor but suffers from foot-in-mouth disease. I recommend he go ] and holler oo-ee--oo--aa--aa--ping--ping--walla--walla--bing--bang to get himself cured. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hmm. Not a sure-fire winner in the "culturally sensitive" category of any RD talk postings award ceremony. --] ]
	::::If that's in reference to my post, it's just a paraphrase of a 1960s nonsense song. I apologize if it comes across as un-PC by today's standards. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Oops, ] was originally released in 1958. Cover bands still record it because it's so catchy and silly - so I didn't it would earn a warning for insensitivity. The link to ] was meant in good faith. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That was one incident among many. But hey, I'm in favor of being patient and understanding. That doesn't require me to give up on the idea that there ''are'' limits to what the ref desk can be used for. -- ] 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::SCZenz, perhaps you could "adopt" Light current like in the "go down to the witch doctor" link. That would make everyone happy. You guys just cut & past the below. -] 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Removed Adoption Templates see edit summary ] 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Doesn't esperanza do something like this? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If he needs to be adopted, it's by a reasonable Admin, like ] or ], not any unreasonable Admin like ] and certainly not by a hothead like ]. ] 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Disrupting the reference desk to make a point ==
	is meta-comment about recent requests that LC keep his comments a bit more on topic. We need to keep meta-discussion on the ref desk talk page, please&mdash;when put on the reference desk itself, it gets in the way. -- ] 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Whats good for the goose....So why isnt other peoples off topic posting remarked upon-- only mine?--] 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I suspect it is because you do it most often, and because you tend to add comments that are both entirely off-topic and entirely without useful content. This is something, it would appear, that various people would like you to work on. By the way, I appreciate your choice to remove the remark I mentioned above. -- ] 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I would contend that non of my posts is entirely off topic. Its just that people may need to use a bit more lateral thinking to make the connection. There are many posts on WP that are entirely w/o useful content according to some. But I do not set myself to judge.8-)--] 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	"Disrupting... to make a point" is a serious accusation. I don't believe that that particular post could be classified as a disruption. -] 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed, the phrase "chit chat" is hardly a serious disruption worthy of complaining about here. ] 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I removed it anyway. Its not worth making a big deal out of it. THanks for your concern. My point has been made 8-)--] 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::And I removed at least part of the comment your comment was commenting on. I took your point to heart. -] 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::THanks I wasnt actually getting at you personally on the desk-- I just saw some chat and well... the rest is in the history 8-)--] 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Oh, I understood, but I am trying to improve my behavior. -] 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Nevertheless my original comment was, in case you guys have ''really'' forgotten, that meta-discussion (especially frustrated sarcastic meta-discussion) gets in the way of the main page, and should be placed on this talk page instead. -- ] 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think you could reasonably ask for much more meta-discussion on this page at this hour than already exists! -] 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	Bear in mind that language is inherently point-making.
	The only reason to use language, ever, is for its psychological effects (points). Even when speaking to oneself.
	Running out the 'disruption to make a point' bugbear means you disapprove of what was said. ] 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmm I think that is generally correct.--] 16:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't, unless 'psychological effects' include 'giving and listening to reasons', in which case the claim makes no substantive point. There's a difference between merely expressing disapproval, and also giving reasons for disapproval. ] 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Right. One comes after the other. First, chastisement. Then, correction. If a child defecated on your best Persian rug, would you first inform him that you do indeed have a toilet for such purposes, and then thrash him soundly? Not in my ]. :) ] 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Ninety percent of all ] live within 100 miles of the U.S. border, where we certainly do try to toilet-train children without thrashing them. -] 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: 'Not another fucking elf!' ] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Something Awful===
	::Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen SomethingAwful.com lately? --] 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Off topic!! 8-))--] 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I can't find the pages being discussed there here. Is that satire? It's quite effective if so. I can't tell the difference. -] 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Who knows? Im past caring now!--] 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::It's definitely brilliant parody. -] 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: It is, at bottom, mean-spirited. It hides it ever so well behind reasonableness, but at the end of the day, no one will be improved by going to SomethingAwful. At least the title is honest though. ] 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Posterity demands we provide a --] ]
	"This article is definitely not FA anymore and is going to lose its GA status soon. I have already revoked the suggestion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 1.0 after a lengthy discussion with the top inner-circle of wikipedia editors. Most of you refuse to respect the other editors who are more versed in the quality demands of wikipedia. Stop adding new sections to Thunder Straps, stop moving paragraphs around, proof read your work before adding it to the article. These are really horrid and, frankly, I'm disgusted beyond words by the whole mess this once-useful article has become. Wikidkid 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" hahaha it's the wikipedia cabal! Brilliant --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Something that annoys me ==
	would it be at all possible to switch the order of the questions, such that the newest are at the top, and the oldest at the bottom? that would make my day, thnks] 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Probably not. The convention seems to be to add to the bottom of pages; and it can be quite a pain to edit in the pages of those contrarians who think it neat to seek to impose adding from the top: you always know where the bottom is, but the top is generally below a whole lot of descriptive text, which means you need to find it ... which is beyond some people & a waste of time. --] ]
	: I thought reversing the order would be a good idea too, until I got very good at grabbing the scroller and flicking it down to the bottom. Practice makes perfect. ] 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	::And, just in case you don't already know, the "End" key, right above the up arrow on your keyboard, will take you to the bottom of the page (you do have to wait for the page to load before hitting it, though, or it will only take you to the bottom of the portion loaded so far). ] 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::snap, i tottally forgot about the end key. thanks for re-introducing us =) ]] 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::You're quite welcome. ] 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Just curious ==
	How do people even find the reference desk? I don't know how I found it but right now I have no idea how to get to it without typing ] in the search box. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I found it on the main page - linked at the very bottom. ] 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I initially found it when reading through the Discussion page for the Main Page. Some time later, I noticed there's a direct link halfway down the Main Page. It's not something that catches the eye, though. ] 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I found it through the ] page while looking for the guide on references (footnotes). -] 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	I actually find it using my watchlist, since it's always near the top, being constantly modified. Of course, this didn't work the first time. ] 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There's a link to it from the Misplaced Pages help portal (]) and Misplaced Pages questions portal ((]), both linked to from the Main Page (just underneath "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" in the default skin). Also, the Help desk links to it from time to time. &mdash; ]<i>]</i> 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Lame answers worse than no answer ==
	I notice that many answers to questions here (including one I asked recently) are initially answered in less than helpful ways - often with no further clarification. I would request that question answerers please direct questioners to appropriate encyclopedia articles as opposed to just writing exposition that may or may not be accurate or relate at all to the question. Thanks. ] 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Can you provide a link to the post in question so we can check it out ? Note that referencing a Misplaced Pages article isn't always appropriate, as our article often doesn't address the question asked. ] 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think the number of unhelpful responses is pretty clear to anyone who cares to look. I'd like to echo RDWarrior's call for better answers here. If you don't have a good answer, or if the question is already well answered, consider ''not'' adding any commentary. Not everyone needs to respond to every question. ] ] 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I agree with RDWarrior and Friday. --] ] 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I must say I agree with RDWarrior in principle but when I went through the short list of contributions made as RDWarrior I couldn't find what he (or she???) is talking about. Looks like he (or she???) got good answers. I agree with StuRat, please provide a link to the question which is being referenced so that it can be analyzed. -] 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The short number of edits is because ] is a new sockpuppet. I don't know who the puppet-master is, although apparently ] does: . How do we find this out ? ] 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::*For Stu's benefit: In the comment from RDW's talk which you cite, I was merely expressing a feeling of kindredness. I have no clue as to "''How do we find this out ?''". --] ] 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::FWIW, ] and of course ]. This is simply to answer the question raised above, not a recommendation for any action of any sort. --] 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:If an editor wishes to remain anonymous, let's not hassle them about it, eh? At any rate, such discussion is off topic ''for this page''. If you have something substantial to add to the growing consensus that we should cut down on the unhelpful answers, let's hear it. ] ] 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::And you also knew ] was a sockpuppet, apparently, based on this comment: ''"Seems clear that you're not ''really'' new, but welcome anyway.'' I suspect that, if this sockpuppet supported a POV opposed to yours, you would attack them viciously for being a sock: . ] 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'll second that. Oh, and StuRat... if you read Hydnjo's comment carefully, you'll see that they're not claiming to know the user at all. -- ] 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think that we should enforce the existing "How to answer" rules to the degree that banter and chat should be discouraged until there is at least a decent stab at a real answer. Otherwise I can see newbies going "WTF, I thought I would get an answer here." or some similar but more polite thought depending on their sensibilities ("My gracious, that doesn't help much at all!"). By discourage I mean comment removed and the poster warned. If we do not police our own house then we can't complain when another does it for us. --] 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
	See my answer at ] for a great counterexample. Exposition can be valuable. In fact I'd say that upwards of 1/3 of questions need exposition rather than links to articles to adequately answer them. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The example you gave isn't harmful in any way I can see, but it's not relevant to the project, either. I'm not going to go around trying to remove that sort of thing, but I would not encourage it either. The problem as I see it, is that this kind of answer relies on editor expertise- we don't have good means of making sure people get good answers. If we stick to what can be answered by an article, they're at least (in theory) made up of information frmo reliable sources, so any misinformation came from somewhere other than here. ] ] 05:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::If the only acceptable answer is to point to an article then the editors are not needed, just a better search engine and instructions on how to use it. -] 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Helping people search for information that already exists is exactly what a real ] does. A lot of the good answers here prominently feature either links to articles, or assistance finding webpages; these are the answers that should be given whenever possible. -- ] 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The same type of collaborative effort that goes into writing an article should also go into providing RD answers. Thus, we aren't relying on the expertise of any one user, but rather the cumulative expertise of the entire Misplaced Pages community. ] 09:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Articles, in case you weren't aware, are also supposed to be based on sources rather than individual expertise. -- ] 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	Notice: the user who asked this question (]) has been permanently blocked: , I assume for being a sockpuppet. Therefore, do not expect any further responses under that user name. ] 10:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, it was a "long-time" user who didn't want to get "embroiled". I wasn't going to complain, people have a right to anonymity if they're not breaking the law, but it's better that it was banned. The whole idea behind a Wiki is open collaboration which is difficult if the information (as to the identity of the sockpuppet) is unbalanced in favor of administrators. Especially since RDWarrior couldn't cite examples without revealing his (her???) identity, the ban propels this discussion forward. -] 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::As you say, people can be anonymous if they're not misusing their multiple accounts (e.g. to have ''both'' participate in a discussion or poll), per ]. There's no evidence of that here, which is presumably that's why ] has now unblocked the user. Do you really view this conflict as "reference desk regulars" versus administrators? That would be sad, not to mention inaccurate. -- ] 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I suspected it was being used in just such a manner, to make it look like some poor innocent newbie was shocked by unhelpful answers (when this wasn't the case at all), thus increasing the deletionist pressure, in support of ]'s and your positions. Having this sockpuppet be unblocked by ], who appears to be on the same side as the sockpuppet, also is a severe conflict of interest. I will remain on the lookout for additional sockpuppets that show up here to support the deletionist Admin faction. ] 16:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not if Friday was following the rules... which he was. And it's pretty weird to assume that a person wanting to be anonymous, and disagreeing with you, ''must'' be an account that's misused. ] indeed. In any case, it appears that it's a moot point and the user is giving up the account. -- ] 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Oh, and ]. -- ] 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ouch! --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:SCZenz, I wasn't meaning to imply that it was Administrators vs. non-Admins but just that in this situation Admins have access to see who the sockpuppet belongs to and non-admins. don't. Unfortunately this whole incident (?) is slightly tinged with an Admin vs. non-Admin characteristic, I'm not sure how that started. Maybe because Admins stepped in and took actions that only Admins could take? I'm not sure at this point. I just know that the whole thing is teetering on the edge of the medicine being worse than the disease or whatever the cliche is. -] 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Admins don't have access to information on account IP's, or on which accounts have the same IP. There is a formal process to get that information, which only happens when there is a clear case for abuse, and only a few people have the technical ability. See ]. -- ] 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, Friday already cleared that up on my talk page. diff is why I thought that to be the case but it was merely failing to read carefully and then assuming on my part. (Incidently it also reinforces the paranoid suspicions of those who believe there IS a cabal.)-] 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	=== This has to stop ===
	::I blocked the acount, Friday unblocked, and I've reblocked again. I did not block for sockpuppetry - this was not the core issue, nor was it the principle to use to take action. The point has been made, and it's time to end the drama over it. If the account holder is as experienced as is consistent with their statements, it would be apparent why I have taken this position. During the block, I unchecked all the options, so that only the account name is banned - I did not want the underlying IP address to show up anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even implicitly.
	::I have become utterly disappointed at how reference desk has evolved over time. This talk page has been the place where the best and worst of process has appeared - it has become a polarizing focal point, where principles on all sides are at stake. This situation is unacceptable, and it needs to be alleviated today.
	::I cannot speak for everyone who frequents here, but this has been the silent voice that has not been heard: that there were things which were done here, which could have, and should have been done differently. This goes for all users, and I am deliberately not applying specifics, because in a sense, this is a collective failure that nobody has taken the responsibility to say that we need to do better, and we need to do it now.
	::A number of times in the archives, I have mentioned that the problems on the reference desk are systemic, and it cannot be solved by a single Wikipedian - this simply is impossible, and those that have pressed for it here ultimately see that this is true. Leadership by example is what works best on a Wiki, because the technology was designed to facilitate asynchronous observation and collaboration.
	::This cloud and rhetoric about what is an "appropriate" response, or whether "censorship" should take place is politicizing and obscuring the core issue of what this place is about - reciprocating questions and answers so that information becomes clear. The Wiki is not here to facilitate and enforce "proper" behaviour; no participant on Misplaced Pages comes to be lectured about how to behave. This is fundamentally not a babysitting service, and it will not work. Having said this, the Wiki is here to evaluate when things do not look professional nor measured - there is a public face to what we do here on this project, and this means that ''public consciousness'' needs to take more precedence over other priorities.
	::I do not like the fact that there are so many hurt feelings lingering about - and I write this from the perspective of numerous e-mails I have received on this issue - so much so, that I have had to turn my e-mail preferences off temporarily. Things that need to be fixed on the Wiki, need to be done on the Wiki. I wish there was such a thing as a magic wand, one that I could wave and remove the negativity that has accumulated here. However, there is no such facility. Be gracious, and move on from the past - and for the sake of this project, do not hold on to this baggage either - it is simply unhealthy, and it does not bring out any good. As I have said multiple times, if we seek to look for what we want to find, we will find it. We are smart, intelligent, mature people who know what we need to do. Codifying how to do this precisely is deferring responsibility to act in present.
	::To sum this up:
	::* There were actions taken here which should have, and could have been done differently.
	::* We need to move on from this now.
	::* We each know what is being asked of us.
	::Now, what is stopping any of us to be a good Wikipedian? I will leave it at that. --] 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Well said, ]. I completely agree. I'm also dismayed at the polarisation of "reference desk regulars" (as if having a comment to make on every question somehow confers "ownership" of the desk, over those that chime in only when they have something useful to say) and "deletionists". As it stands, the two groups appear to me to more interested in furthering their position by making ]s. I know there are plenty of individuals, like me, who believe a little more ''self''-policing is required - from everyone - to make this place a pleasant and informative place to be. Isn't that the Wikipidia way? Lets move on, as at the moment it is, quite frankly, boring. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The way I see it is that each side is desperately trying to make as many concessions to the other as possible.. a strange situation but it seems healthy so far --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::So what exactly are you proposing? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Suggestion for re-use of help answers ==
	If a question ''could'' be answered by an article but isn't, consider fixing the article so it's more understandable and then referring the questioner to it. This puts the effort where it counts for the most- in the encyclopedia content. This will do more good for the project over the long run than putting your time into making an answer ''just for this page''- that'll get archived soon and won't do any lasting good. ] ] 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There is no reason you can't do both. That is, answer the question as quickly and thoroughly as possible on the Ref Desk, then copy that answer, with suitable reformatting, to the article in question. ] 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I second that, as long as it isn't to specific(such as some of my questions about javascript ect. ect.)... ]] 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's a good point. Many questions like "what was ] doing the day before he was assassinated", while valid and deserving of an answer, may not meet notability requirements of otherwise deserve a permanent entry in Misplaced Pages article. ] 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Friday's suggestion is already followed to some extent. Misplaced Pages articles are far from perfect, so if a misleading or incomplete section can be improved as a result of the research here, it is a win-win. But many questions are "how-to" which the articles are for some reason supposed to avoid. A question about what hacksaw blade could cut up a steel framed sofa so it would fit in the elevator comes to mind as an instance of "too specific how to." But info from the answer would improve ], which does not note the referenced guidelines cited in the answer for teeth per inch versus thickness of metal. ] 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::By the way, I cut the sofa frame into halves and then quarters and it's been out of my (small) apartment for a couple of weeks (after sitting there for at least a year) and I'd like to thank everyone for their help and opinions on that matter. -] 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::My greatest dread is that we leave out some idiotic safety suggestion like "wear eye protection," or "make sure a responsible adult supervises" and someone puts out an eye, severs an artery, or burns down the house." ] 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Good, I'm glad we could help. ] 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I checked what happens in the Real World of in-person or online reference desk librarians. In both cases, they have a card file for frequent questions, such as "What is the total number of human beings who have ever lived," and they use the file to answer recurring questions. The online RLRDLs also have templates to use when trolls ask inappropriate questions, and in extreme cases (such as harrassment) they have policies for tracking down the individual user and getting sanctions applied. RLRDLs have policies of answering questions within a set timeframe, such as 24 hours, and do some followup surveying to make sure the question was answered satisfactorily. They also ask followup questions to determine the age and sophistication of the questioner, and to better define the question. ] 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Peanuts==
	Per the request to keep meta-comments here and not on the project page, why is the long thread about a farmer storing peanuts in the forest (Peanuts, Dec. 5, Miscellaneous ) still on the main page? It smacks of masks and seagulls. I was not aware of the rule about no meta-comments on the project page at the time I questioned there the presence of the thread. ] 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Which rule is this? --] 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Because some people believe that removing a troll's questions is ineffective, as it was in this case, which was a repost of a "questin" that was "rubbed out" that was ostensibly posted by.....a squirrel. Yes, the whole thing was totally humorous, including the two spellings of "forest" as "forast" and "forsest". Who posted the questions? I have no idea. Some people couldn't even see that it was not a serious situation. Is this harmful to the reference desk? I don't believe so. At this point, however, I'm not sure if I should even comment on things like this because I really don't want to upset anyone. -] 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I "assumed good faith", treated it as a serious question, and responded accordingly. ] 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	Vis a vis a question I asked about the nature of Science: is not 'troll' synonymous with 'scientific heretic'? ] 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Unless you're a religious person, then a scientist is a troll. It's irrelevant in this situation, it was obviously trolling to post a silly question by a squirrel, nothing to do with heresy of any sort. Juvenile, non-disruptive trolling, but trolling nonetheless. -] 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Another deletionist Ref Desk sockpuppet ==
	An additional deletionist Ref Desk sockpuppet ], has now been permanently blocked by ], just as sockpuppet ] was permanently blocked by ], unblocked by ], then reblocked permanently by ]. If the current sockpuppet is also unblocked by a deletionist Admin, just as the last one was, I will issue a formal complaint against that Admin. ] 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Is this an implicit reference to the Friday unblocking RDWarrior after I blocked it? It wasn't done from the perspective of supporting deletionist tendencies on the RD. Let's put this to rest. --] 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You may not see it that way, but ]'s behavior looks highly suspicious to me. ] 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Duly noted. --] 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Funny, seems that was a Science Ref Desk deletionist. I wonder if there is any relation to the Misc Ref Desk deletionists? HappyCamper, there is a parallel and somewhat intertwined deletionist issue at play here. -] 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::A sockpuppet check was on my mind, but in this case, I don't think it's necessary. This "experienced user" needs to know better, because these sockpuppets have no place here on the RD. Not only is this true, but there is also no need for sockpuppets that test the line of appropriateness. I will block these accounts if I see them. --] 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Good, I agree. ] 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Do you believe that an established user should be allowed to have anonymity in a sensitive situation? What's the proper way to achieve that? Just log out? -] 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If by anonymity you mean us not knowing their real name, then absolutely. If you mean hiding their username, history, and motivations, then absolutely not. If they are so ashamed of their past behavior that they need a "fresh start", then they should abandon the old account, take a wikibreak, then get a new account. ] 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::StuRat, that was actually for HappyCamper but there was an edit conflict but I like your answer. -] 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Well whoever the 'experienced user' is, it isn't me. :-) But I have seen such things used sometimes on RFAs, and I haven't ever seen people complain. But I guess if the editor in question is a regular RD user, it would be considered sockpuppeting. ] 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::(Edit confict while answering THB above...) I'm risking ] by doing this, but this is what I'd recommend. There's enough animosity built up here that there is good reason to create sockpuppet accounts. Create one, and just use that for the RD. No harm in doing that at all. I wouldn't recommend contributing with a bare IP address, because that gives away your geographical location.
	:::::To distinguish between doing this, and what those two sockpuppets were doing, consider the perspective that they were here advocating for a particular agenda. It's been duly noted, and the sockpuppets have served their purpose. About 100 posts have been made to address their actions, so you can see why these sorts of accounts are to be taken seriously when the surface. I don't recommend interpreting this little wheel war I had with Friday as being one, because it's not. It's a sign that accountability exists on Misplaced Pages with respect to administrative actions. It would be troubling had it ''not'' occurred, because it would suggest that unilateral action can be taken during controversial situations, which is not the case on Misplaced Pages. I hope this puts the issue to rest.
	:::::I wrote that suggestion above to give the sense that this place is being looked at in a measured way - I can't do this alone, so as I said earlier, hopefully we can police ourselves better after this long drama. For the record, I plan to "block if necessary but not necessarily". I tend to write a lot to justify my administrative actions, and that takes some time for me to do. It's a style that I'm confortable with. So, generally, these extra buttons are used sparingly and judiciously from my end. My hope is that it's seen this way too. --] 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I suppose, if a sockpuppet comes along and just adds content to the Ref Desk, without doing anything controversial, advocating a particular position, deleting things right and left, etc., then nobody would have any cause to complain about them. ] 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::The name itself, RDWarrior, was designed to make a point and to indicate that it was an existing user with an agenda. -] 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Let's stop talking about "deletionists" ==
	This is unhelpful. As far as I know, nobody's suggesting we have a different standard here for removing content than we already have on any other page. Will people sometimes remove egregious content? Yes, they will, same as any other page. Should this be common? No. I think in the year and a half I've been editing here, I've only removed people's comments a handful of times. At first I thought it was a good idea to remove on sight off-topic questions, but this was a mistake. Since then I've decided (helped by people who've put them back and tried to answer them) that its more helpful and polite to respond to them. Let's remember what the reference desk is meant to be for- helping people find information. ] ] 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There are two standards for what can be deleted:
	::Article standard = Delete anything where you feel the deletion is an improvement.
	::Talk page standard = Only delete egregious violations of Misplaced Pages policy.
	::I believe most Editors believe that the talk page standard should be followed on the Ref Desk, but, apparently, not everyone agrees. I would define the diff between an inclusionist and a deletionist as the following:
	::Deletionists = Everything should be deleted unless there's a good reason to leave it in.
	::Inclusionists = Everything should be retained, unless there's a good reason to delete it.
	::] 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Fact is, there's been a lot of deleting going on at the Ref Desk. It's just that unless you check the history, it's invisible. SCZenz in particular deletes things and doesn't consider that editing them if I understand his position. This whole situation started getting heated when someone removed something rather than allowing Light current to alter or remove it himself. -] 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And I admit to having deleted some seriously offensive racist ranting that I considered vandalism. -] 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::If it really was "seriously offensive racist ranting", then I agree with that action. Can you provide a link so we can check it out ? ] 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::StuRat, I started looking for it was at least a week ago and I just realized I make way too many edits on Misplaced Pages, daily. It's a needle in a haystack. It was a couple of times within a fifteen minute period a week or two ago. -] 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's OK, I trust '''your''' judgment. ] 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Editors do not own their edits. All editors are "allowed" to censor themselves and keep their comments appropriate and relevant. In fact, it's not merely allowed- it's ''expected''. There seem to be a different set of cultural expectations among some regulars of this page- I encourage everyone to diversify, see more of the project, and understand Wikipedian culture and expectations. Removing offensive racist rants is ''expected'' - not just for admins, for all editors. ] ] 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::On talk pages, they do indeed own them, unless they are an egregious violation of policy. ] 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I absolutely understand what you're saying, Friday, and agree with all of it except it needs StuRat's clarification. I was just being meticulous in pointing out that I've removed comments because I loathe hypocrisy. Also, I believe that's one of the very few times when things should be deleted on sight. -] 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::There are too many edits and too many pages for my old fingers to keep up with right now, so excuse my tardiness. Deleting/moderating edits has been done since the dawn of time on the RD - the difference is that when this project was small, these deletions could occur in a very professional way without causing much contention. There was an implicit agreement among ''all'' the regulars that inappropriate content would be removed. Ages ago, behind the scenes, the regulars would actually remove content that was inappropriate, and stake a claim at how graceful they could do this without anyone noticing, and how it upheld the values of being a Wikipedian and such. Sort of done in a geeky, quirky, positive way. --] 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The old guard forgot to tell the new recruits what the rules were before they went off to fight. The new recruits settled in and made their own rules. Now the old guard is back from the Crusade, and want the old rules back. New recruits resent it. Old guard, having been off fighting, are mostly Admins now. Conflict ensues. -] 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Then, if phrased like this, the conflict is not of the RD, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what an administrator is on the part of the administrators. The RD environment was just the unfortunate casualty of it all. It should be very clear whether a user is acting as a regular editor or an administrator, and unfortuantely this was not done in a consistent way here. Administrative actions taken in the name of a ''Better Misplaced Pages'' but one which precipitates an exceptional number of edits without accomplishing much is simply inappropriate and ineffective administration. Some of the initial threats of blocking and deleting were simply not right. This was sort of lingering about for a few months, and I regret not jumping in and stating something to the effect: "You know, we have a problem, we need a solution, but this isn't the way to go about it." Maybe, just maybe, this would have saved us all this negativity. --] 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	Jimbo said it best: 'Misplaced Pages is not a junk yard'. A junk yard is a junk yard, and Misplaced Pages is not filled with junk, ergo it cannot in any way be a junk yard. It may be crappy, but it may NOT be a junkyard.
	See also ]
	] 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Theavatar3, please explain about the junk yard and the cows. I feel like I should understand what you are saying but I just don't and can't but I want to.. -] 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Rules for deletions==
	:There seems to be a disagreement between those who feel that anything on the Ref Desk can be deleted by anyone, for any reason, without notification to the author, and those which feel a more formal approach should be taken. Allow me to repost the rules I try to follow, and see if we can reach a consensus on which approach is best at the RD:
	Unnecessary escalation is both rude and nonproductive. The proper procedure should be followed:
	:1) First, mention the post on the author's talk page, and politely list your objection, and request that they remove it.
	:2) If they refuse, and if the comment is so outrageous as to warrant further action, then bring it up here, again politely.
	:3) If a consensus is reached here to remove it, then the author can again be given the opportunity to remove the comment. At this, point, however, once community consensus exists that it should be removed, other members of the community may delete the comment, if the author refuses.
	:4) If, and only if, the author replaces the comment three times, should an Admin be summoned, via a 3RR violation complaint.
	There are also grounds for a "speedy deletion" by anyone, such as death threats, etc., but only the most severe cases warrant such actions. And, even in these cases, the author should still be notified of the deletion (on their talk page) and the reason (policy violations) given.
	Perhaps we should also discuss the reasons to do things according to the above procedure:
	:a) To be polite. Politeness goes a long way.
	:b) To avoid "revert wars". (If a comment is removed without consensus having been reached to do so, then the author is entirely justified to disagree with the opinion of the person who removed it and restore the comment.)
	:c) To avoid a POV bias in the removals. For example, a politically liberal editor might tend to delete any slightly off topic politically conservative comments, and vice-versa, even though they would leave such comments in if they were more in line with their political ideology. This could escalate to having all liberal statements removed by conservatives, and vice-versa, even if entirely on-topic.
	:d) To avoid personal vendettas in the removals. That is "you removed my post, so I'll remove yours". If a consensus is required for such removals, this type of petty behavior is unlikely.
	] 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I, of course, '''support''' the above rules for deletion. ] 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Reiterate '''support'''. -] 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	* The "proper procedure" for comment removals amounts to a rejection of the wiki process, which is a ], and a violation of ], which is policy. No amount of polling here can selectively overturn either of these. -- ] 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::How do you think rules are made on Misplaced Pages? Right, by proposing them on the relevant talk page. Which is what is done here. ] 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::You can't overturn foundation issues, or rewrite existing policy for specific pages, without far, far more community input than you're getting. -- ] 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Lack of community input? You've got to be joking. Just scroll up and down. ] 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. These are reasonable and appropriate rules. SCZenz has the wrong interpretation of ] - it does not prohibit rules (how could it - Wiki has lots of rules and procedures). It ''does'' say that "disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures". These proposed rules are designed to build and demonstrate consensus, which seems to be what the unliateral deletionists are keen to avoid. ] 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' with certain reserves. I strongly believe that following these rules in the past might have achieved the same effect in terms of questionable posts being removed, without unnecessarily offending the editors in question. That being said, I'd like to know more about how consensus is established (#3). Furthermore, though I'm a radical inclusionist and only delete e-mail addies, I completely understand (and even support) the immediate removal of offensive comments that are perhaps less offensive than death threats (e.g. personal attacks, racist and sexist remarks) in the interest of minimizing the damage. Maybe this needs to be specified. Finally, I'd like these rules to be seen as guidelines, not codified rules, because I'm genuinely worried about the creep effect. ---] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I '''would support if''' there were a way to make sure that people adhere to these rules. However, with a history of close to one thousand edits per day that is impossible (or at least unworkable) unless some alternative is devised like a separate history for changes to previous posts (by other editors). I don't know if this is possible, but until a solution to this problem is devised I suggest anyone who alters other people's postst should be severely punished (say a one week block unless they can come up with a good defense). The easier the crime, the more severe the punishment should be. This contrasts with the 'crime' of being funny when that is out in the open. So deletions should be punished much more severely than additions. ] 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' with a heavy heart: ] has been strained when we have to formalize this. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Wikipidia is not a bureaucracy, but neither should it be an autocracy. I could also live with a system where the person whose answer is deleted can reinstate it and if the deletor insists it shoud be removed, the deletor institutes the formal debate here. Sometimes we may accidentally stray off topic or insert too much whimsy, and might recognize that and agree with the deletion. I suppose in the proposed process, at that stage the offending poster could agree to the deletion. ] 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' wholeheartedly ]] 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Partial support''' but I think 3 reverts is too much, one revert is enough to warrant action --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. It's a shame that we even have to be considering such measures, but since it seems to have become necessary, I support a process that is as far removed from the instant imposition of bureaucratic diktat as reasonably possible. People should at least be given opportunities to retreat from positions that are offensive, wittingly or otherwise, to others, before sterner measures are invoked. ] 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Sounds fair to me.--] 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Response to ] ===
	I'm fine with weakening it from "rules" to "guidelines". I see the process of developing consensus as very much like what we are doing here. That is, where the consensus is obvious (nearly everyone is on one side of the issue), after discussion, no further steps are needed. If it's close to an even split, though, a "support" and "oppose" list may be needed to break the tie. I only meant death threats as a single example, not that this is the only thing that justifies an out-of-process deletion. Do you agree that the authors of text which is deleted "out-of-process" still should be notified of that deletion and the reason for it ? ] 12:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the clarifications, Stu. My reserves persist regarding the consensus, because what you're describing sounds more like a majority vote to me, and this can't replace finding a consensus that works for everyone, which, I admit, would involve hard work and takes a lot of time. I don't think it will be easy to achieve consensus, but, for the moment, I have no alternative suggestion.
	:I do, however, certainly agree that registered users should be notified when their posts get deleted. I'm less sure whether it's worth the bother with anonymous users with sporadic contributions. ---] 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, we can provide a notification exception for anon I/P's, but there are people who permanently stay with just an I/P to be as anonymous as possible. Perhaps we could still notify them if they took the time to create a home page (so their link is blue). This implies, to me, that they aren't a "fly by night vandal". ] 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	=== It's a nice thought, but it it won't work ===
	The process, as outlined, is unworkable. It would in most cases take anywhere from several hours to days to run its course. If an editor &ndash; in an attempt to be 'clever' or 'witty' or to 'impress' his peers on the Ref Desk &ndash; bites a newbie (mocking a newbie for an obvious typo, bringing out whatever 2007's 'suitly emphazi' will be, etc.) starts wasting the Desk's time with bagel/seagull nonsense, or insists on inserting his penis into a discussion where it wasn't asked for, this process will take several days to remove a comment by an obstinate editor. (Some individuals seem to perceive a 'right' to make bad jokes here; I don't understand that attitude, but it persists.)
	*Step one, notification. Polite wait for discussion. How long? Eight hours? Twelve hours? '''Twenty-four hours'''?
	:*You can assume the user is online, so one hour should be adequate for them to respond (we can add this to the guideline). If they aren't online, then they miss out on the first step. ] 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Steps two and three, talk page discussion here. At least another '''twenty-four hours'''. (Don't forget arguments amount whether or not consensus has been reached. Might take two days.)
	:*Maybe four hours would be sufficient here, if all the opinions are for deletion. If there is a dispute it could take longer to settle, but, then it isn't likely to be a very severe problem, if we don't all agree to remove it, so the time delay isn't much of an issue. ] 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Step four, edit war and block. Call it '''twelve hours'''. Remember that single questions can't be watchlisted, so 3RR violations take much more effort to monitor. A smarter editor may also game 3RR, restoring a comment at longer intervals to avoid a technical 3RR violation and stretching this process even further.
	:*This time would be part of the process, whether you deleted immediately or not, so there is no reason to add this to the total. Actually, though, once they see the consensus is against them, they are far less likely to engage in an edit war they are certain to lose, so will likely back off. Thus, we could actually save 12 hours from an unnecessary edit war, followed by a block. Also, you are assuming the worst of people here, that they won't listen to polite suggestions, will ignore the consensus, and will engage in an edit war. I expect the vast majority of people to behave reasonably, but only when they, in turn, are treated reasonably. ] 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	In other words, to remove a single unhelpful line or two added by a vexatious editor will take a three-day process, over the first two days of which there is no way to remove the insulting or inappropriate remark. It will require the involvement of many editors, many edits, and still leads to the very weak limit imposed by 3RR if an editor doesn't respect this lengthy process.
	The Ref Desk is a much faster-turnover environment than most of the rest of Misplaced Pages. People come to us and often expect to see responses in hours (even minutes). If we leave rude remarks up for days, then frankly, those readers are never going to know that we ''eventually'' smartened up and recognized that one of our people was being a ].
	I appreciate the effort that went into creating this process proposal, but it just won't work. As written, it will have no effect whatsoever on what most visitors to the Ref Desk actually see. It will soak up the time of individuals who try to participate in it that could have been better applied elsewhere. ](]) 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Such a bizarre, heavyweight process is utterly contrary to how we do things here. ] ] 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No, it's not. This is a misperception, Friday, which is simply not supported by the facts. Wiki has lots of complex processes and procedures - take a look at ] ... ] ... ] ... to name but three examples. There is ''obviously'' a need for checks and balances on RD deletions, and StuRat's proposed process meets the need very nicely. ] 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::These are all procedures for when the wiki process isn't working well in specific cases, ''not'' rules for what you do first. -- ] 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It is true that Misplaced Pages has lots of processes that take a substantial amount of time to carry out. Generally, we employ those heavyweight processes when we are discussing matters that can seriously, severely, detrimentally affect the project&mdash;we're very careful about who gets the block and protection buttons at ], and we take a long time to consider the appropriateness of entire articles (the entire ] framework).
	:::I don't think it's appropriate to draw parallels with those processes. They involve major changes that can affect Misplaced Pages as a whole. Also, neither process is typically associated with the compressed timelines we deal with at the Ref Desk. An article about a non-notable garage band doesn't do a great deal of harm if it sits around for a week on AfD (particularly if the nominator removes any spam links from the article); it's no big deal if an editor gets a sysop bit this week or next week.
	:::On the other hand, on the Ref Desk we often deal with people who've never experienced any aspect of Misplaced Pages before. They may be ten years old, they may not speak English as a first (or even second) language. It's rude to them and embarrassing to us if their first exposure to Misplaced Pages involves mocking their typos or poor grasp of English. It's confusing and frustrating if they get inexplicable seagull nonsense. At its roots, the Ref Desk is here to benefit those people who come here to ask us for help; it's not a social club &ndash; or a comedy club &ndash; or a networking site for Misplaced Pages editors.
	:::Removing replies that don't help the individual who posed the question doesn't harm that goal. Removing replies that (worse!) insult or denigrate the questioner or other participants improves the atmosphere here. I certainly support notifying editors when you remove their irrelevant or downright rude remarks. I think that sort of feedback is important, and I think that such cases should be discussed (at length, if necessary) on the talk page. I think that such discussion will help to clarify what standards of behaviour are acceptable here, and I believe that discussion after the removal will provide a sufficent check on overzealous trimming. However, I'm afraid that the pace of this page and the nature of the service it provides just aren't compatible with the slow, deliberative process that StuRat has proposed&mdash;leaving inappropriate remarks up for two or three days while we talk about it has the same effect as not removing them at all. ](]) 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't know if you've read my comments (interspersed with your original post above), but I've shown that the time delay would be minimal, and quite possibly there would be a time improvement, by avoiding the adversarial process you prefer, which frequently leads to revert wars, 3RR rules invocations, and blocking (in cases where these could easily be avoided with a little civility on the part of the Admins). Both the recent cases of the blocks of ] and ] could have been avoided, along with all the haggling and unpleasantness that resulted, had a bit of civility and respect been shown to the users, as would occur if the guidelines I've suggested had been followed. ] 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Blocks for disruption are best avoided by editors not being disruptive. This applies to the RD as much as it does to any other page in the project. ] ] 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Sounds a bit like "INNOCENT people generally don't mind having their homes searched and their phones tapped."] 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::TenOfAllTrades - if I understand you correctly, you seem to agree that there is a need for ''some'' process to control RD deletions - just not the process that StuRat has proposed (whereas Friday, on the other hand, seems to be set against the idea of having ''any'' process around RD deletions at all). So, why not propose an alternative process, and see if that achieves consensus ? ] 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Maybe this is just nitpicking over words, but we have a set of conventions for removing content. I'm suggesting that this already-in-use set of conventions will work here, and we need no formalized process. This is how the rest of Misplaced Pages works. All I'm saying is, let's conduct the RD pages like we do the rest of the project. Those that suggest treating it differently should say why they think standard procedure won't cut it. ] ] 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::The Ref Desk is clearly a part of Misplaced Pages (and an important part, which is why many of us hang around here so much), but in a sense it's in a category of its own where not all the usual rules apply, or should apply. For example: factually inaccurate statements may be disputed, but they are not just edited out; general writing standards are not enforced; spelling and grammar peculiarities on the part of one poster are not edited by others (although comments are often made); the nature of any Ref Desk subject is much more like a discussion or a debate than an encyclopaedic article; discussions, once finished, are rarely revisited; discussions often include off-topic threads (some of which are useful additions to the sum of human knowledge, some not); etc. Thus, there have to be special rules for the Ref Desk, and a relaxation of many of the rules that make the rest of Misplaced Pages great. ] 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Agreed. ] 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::If I make an egregiously inappropriately humorous or unintentionally off-topic reply, please delete it and inform me on my talk page. I will probably agree with a good-faith deletion by a responsible editor or admin. If I feel "Here I stand and I can do no other" and feel compelled to re-post the reply as an issue of faith or morals, I will do so and the editor who deleted it can then bring the issue to this talk page for an up or down vote to see what the consensus of editors is. Sound fair? ] 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::If you personally want to let other editors slide on the guidelines for deletion, regarding your own posts, I'm fine with that. However, I, and many others, simply don't trust the judgment of some of the people who patrol the Ref Desk, to fairly decide what is "egregiously inappropriate", as they have shown an astonishing lack of judgment in many of their actions, thus far. Therefore, for our posts, we prefer that consensus be reached on what is inappropriate, before it's removed. ] 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Discussion==
	:Some of this is instruction creep. Also, you're seriously misrepresenting the "deletionists" you keep talking about. Who's suggesting that anyone can delete anything for any reason? If you really think that's what people are suggesting, it's no wonder you disagree so strongly. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, I don't see why we need some formal process like this. How about we use our best judgment, and discuss specific cases on the talk page if there's disagreement? ] ] 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Friday, this isn't a call for explicit codification, just a quick way to get some agreement to move things along. There hasn't been agreement on this desk for the past 8 months! --] 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I believe this is the very core of all the trouble at the Ref Desk, a fundamental disagreement on the process for deleting both questions and answers. As such, I feel that any solution will require us to reach a consensus on the process to be used. Just saying "Standard Misplaced Pages rules apply" is too vague, there are many contradictory rules, so how are we to decide which rules apply here, if not by consensus ? ] 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough. Here's my opinion on this: The reference desk is part of Misplaced Pages. It is meant to be a useful resource to help people find the information they're looking for. If questions lead us to realize there's a deficiency in an article, and we can improve it- so much the better. The reference desk is meant to be primarily informative, not social. Excessive chatting is discouraged. Off-topic content ''can'' be removed at the discretion of an editor, but we should take a light hand in doing so. As for reverts- we should follow standard practice here. If someone makes an edit and you feel strongly enough that it's unhelpful as to want to revert it, do so, but ''do not do this lightly''. If someone disagrees, let's discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. It is usually bad form to redo an edit someone else has undone- this is in contrast to "b" above. Users who regularly act in a way contrary to the goals of the reference desk will probably find people on their talk pages asking them to change their approach. The above are things I expect there should be wide agreement on. The other opinion I have, which may be more controversial, is my belief that original research does not belong on the reference desk any more than it belongs in other part of Misplaced Pages. ] ] 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::There's the rub: Friday's opinion is fundamentally different. -] 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Discounting the OR bit, where? I've tried to stick to opinions about the RD that come solely from an understanding of the goals, culture, and policies of Misplaced Pages. ] ] 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::But, many editors here disagree with your interpretation of the implementation of those goals, culture, and policies at the RD, and we aren't just ignorant newbies, so there are multiple valid ways to read such things. This is why we need a consensus, as opposed to having each of us going off on our own interpretation and unilaterally doing things (this is what has caused all the recent trouble here). ] 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Please tell me what you disagree with in the above, and why. As I've said- I've tried to just talk about fundamentals- there should be wide agreement on these issues, and if there's not, I want to know why. ] ] 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Well for one it leads to, as stu said, unilateral action. Some anon ip removed a very valid reply of sturat's earlier today and the only reason I caught it was because I was perusing the history (which is something that not a lot of RD contributors do). I'd rather see one of these epic, megabyte-sized arguments over a reponse than see it quietly deleted and lost. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::I agree. BTW, which of my contributions was deleted anonymously? Did you restore it ? ] 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, this is why we need to hear the opinions of others, and determine which opinion the consensus says we should follow. ] 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'd like to avoid getting into the whole discussion of what is appropriate at the Ref Desk, and limit this discussion solely to the process for removing something once we find it to be inappropriate. This is something we should actually be able to agree on, with a bit of compromise. ] 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Things that are inappropriate may be candidates for removal, so I don't see that there's a way to seperate the two issues. You seem to be wanting to vote on what's appropriate, and that's not how we do things here. ] ] 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Establishing a process acceptable to all would allow for the determination of whether the material is appropriate for removal. Deleting things on sight is one person deciding for all what is appropriate. That's what people are upset about. -] 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::(Go back and read at the top of the page the "I feel this comment is inappropriate" section.) -] 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Agreed, this process for deletions could be used whatever the criteria for deletion are. For example, if we decide that any post containing the word "bagel" is a candidate for removal, then this process can be used for that. ] 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm not sure you understand how things work here. Even if you get consensus that posts with "bagel" can be removed, ''this is not valid''. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy- we have certain fundamental policies that consensus cannot override. ] ] 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus, both in the interpretation/application of the rules and in the definition of the rules, themselves. So, I disagree that there are some rules "written in stone" that we are forced to follow. ] 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::] is non-negotiable per Jimbo. -] 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Also IIRC is the rest of that "holy trinity" of ], ], and ]. I can't find the link on meta that calls it that exactly but i believe those are the three. Anyway it's irrelevant to this topic --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Where are those fundamental policies so I may review them? -] 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Friday, yes, that's true, but the entire politics around that is not what is needed now. Something needs to be stated that so that there is a sense of security and stability. The ambiguity in that sort of unilateralism isn't what needs emphasis at the moment. Well, to answer THB, maybe ], might be something, but then again, see also ]. --] 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::LOL, a perfect example of how the rules contradict one another, and we must decide which to apply to the RD. ] 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::''Finally'' I got someone to laugh around here. Now, we can get to work. :-) Stu and THB, let's try a little ''modest proposal'' ourselves, hm? The key is to see through the gossamer of rhetoric along that entire spectrum of thought. I'm going to risk leaving this talk page now, because I have one of those Wikipedian feelings that the problem knows how to fix itself already. --] 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::The're not really contradictory- IAR says that if the rules prevent you from improving wikipedia, then ignore them. FAR says that the rules are beneficial to wikipedia so you rarely if ever have to worry about IAR. I'm not a big fan of IAR, however the RD definately seems to me like one of those cases where a lot of stuff just has got to slide --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Other good ones are ] and ]. Happycamper, I agree- this isn't the place to discuss esoteric aspects of Misplaced Pages policy, but I felt there are still some fundamental misunderstandings that are getting in the way. Wanting to have an exact, rigid process to follow is fundamentally misguided, and I don't feel any meaningful discussion of the issue can happen without pointing this out. This is why I suggested people get more experience with the project and come to their own understanding- the policy that is written is not the true policy. ] ] 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	Friday, we're not all complete n00bs. My first edit logged in was July 2005. Yours was June. -] 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And mine was August, 2005. I've also had experience writing articles, editing existing articles, reverting vandalism, and even working over at WikiNews, with some 15,000 edits in total (not all of them puns). So, we certainly all have enough collective experience here to "understand the wiki process". ] 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I used wikipedia as early as 2003, but this account was registered sometime in 2005 to be associated with my nintendo forums account at the time. Not as many edits as others, but I like to think that they're generally good quality :) Not to mention that i have almost no edits in the mainspace, where quick 1-character edits rack up oh so fast --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Froth! Just because most of my edits are useless doesn't mean they all are!!!!-] 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I agree with the intent here, but the current wording is too bureaucratic and indicative of instruction creep. (]) 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Justanother==
	Leftist. Reiterate that the RD is not an article and one should review ] to see how rules for articles differ from other areas. Moreover, RD is "its own beast". We get a whole lot of absolute newbies, many with only marginal ability to frame their question in English. It is RUDE to delete their posts, no matter how crappy they are in relation to the guidelines. I think what I did with Ethnic is a good model though perhaps for another question (I only put that there because Friday had already deleted the question but I really did not see much wrong with pointing the OP at articles on morals, ethics, etc without going into my opinion but after realizing that that was exactly what was asked for I decided the note was the best way). If the question cannot be easily reworded or is otherwise flawed then kindly let them know what is wrong and ask them to correct it. If the OP cannot be bothered to do that then why should we expend the considerable more effort that we, as a group, expend. Delete obvious trolls on sight; "Why are all niggers stupid" being an obvious troll and subject to instant deletion; "Is Scientology a cult" being a less-obvious troll but probably deserving of a discussion of the definition of a cult and whether Scientology meets that definition, but not of the merits of Scientology as that would be nothing but a discussion forum of opinions (and you don't want to get me started, trust me). '''Support''' the concept that we can police our own house.
	1. Remove obvious trolls - any editor
	2. Ask OP to reword questions that are too ambiguous to be reworded by an RD editor - any editor
	3. Refactor posts that have formatting errors or include personal info - any editor
	4. Ask OP for clarification as needed - any editor
	5. Answer the question you think he would want to ask had he been able to word it better - any editor
	6. Remove obvious unhelpful answers if an even partial on-point answer has not yet been posted (this one is my only real new idea) - any editor
	7. Leave the banter alone once an even partial on-point answer has been posted - any editor
	8. Delete hate-talk in responses on sight - any editor
	9. Warn users that do not agree with our cabal when their actions violate the rules of the cabal - all cabal members
	10. Warn users that abuse the RD on their talk page and escalate as needed (OK, the above one was a bit of a joke) - any editor
	11. Use "common sense" - all editors
	Amazingly, with the possible exception of # 6 and that not really, I think these rules are already in effect on wikipedia as a whole and we just need to do them. Did I leave any out?
	--] 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Seems reasonable to me. These look to me mostly like issues on which there should be wide agreement. ] ] 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::But someone deleted the ethics question? Not everyone agrees. -] 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's ok to say "but ''you'' deleted the ethics question"- I won't be offended. Chalk it up to learning curve- I'm a reference desk newbie. IMO we should not attempt to answer opinion-only questions, but rather than removing them we should explain to the questioner that the question calls for opinion, and remind everyone that Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Hopefully, folks will get the hint and stay away from trying to answer such stuff, and we'll spend our time in more productive areas. ] ] 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I didn't know it had been deleted and I didn't look to see who did it. I would have guessed someone else. Well, you shouldn't have deleted it. The consensus seemed to have been that such questions were okay until recently. I still think they're okay. '''What is the real purpose of knowledge anyway?''' -] 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: What is the real purpose of knowledge? How about this one -- what is real knowledge? If we're drawing up dichotomies, let's start with reality - unreality. Or, more productively, and less productively, sanity, and insanity. See ]. Or not. Nietzsche called him a 'false coiner', which about sums up that miserable, clever fellow's affairs in life, as well as in death. And Paul the Baptist is the miserable, clever, fellow, not Fredreich Nietzsche. He, Nietzsche was, and still is, 'the first decent human being'.
	:::::"The only real Christian died on the cross." -- being highly equivocal with Nietzsche -- I believe he actually wrote 'true' instead of 'real', and he wrote in German, not English, and he wrote in Switzerland, not Canada, and he used a real pen, not a bloody computer.
	:::::] 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::(ec) That's a question for a philosophy forum. has one. Sitting around chatting about our opinions is not relevant to the purpose of Misplaced Pages and thus doesn't belong here. I'm ''not'' suggesting this means it's worth causing all kinds of trouble to remove such stuff, but it's not relevant and should be discouraged. ] ] 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Please note that in my above guidelines there is little or nothing about judging questions to be appropriate or inappropriate. I considered that then rejected the idea. Ask for clarification if needed but it is up to the RD editors, not the poster, to know the rules and the RD editors should refrain from turning this into an opinion free-for-all. They refrain by answering the question, not offering their opinion, and the more the question asks for an opinion, the less opinion they offer. That should be our guideline, IMO. --] 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Those seem like a fairly nice summary of what normal behaviour on the RD should be, IMHO. I'm generally opposed to guidelines for the RD, but as a description of ideal behaviour, these look good to me. ] 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	My comments:
	1. Remove obvious trolls - any editor
	Agreed. They have to be really blatant, though. There seems to be the tendency of editors to take any post in poorly written English to be a troll, for example. This is a bad thing. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	2. Ask OP to reword questions that are too ambiguous to be reworded by an RD editor - any editor
	Agreed. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	3. Refactor posts that have formatting errors or include personal info - any editor
	Agreed, but leave a copy of the original post, in case you misinterpreted it. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	4. Ask OP for clarification as needed - any editor
	Agreed, but we do seem to go overboard in this area. Like if somebody asks the mass of the Earth, we start asking "Do you include the mass of the oceans ? the air ? the animals ?". None of that would make much difference in the answer. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	5. Answer the question you think he would want to ask had he been able to word it better - any editor
	Yes, or answer the question we can answer, which is related to what they ask. For example, we can't answer "Why are men smarter than women", but can answer "In which ways are men and women smarter ?". ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	6. Remove obvious unhelpful answers if an even partial on-point answer has not yet been posted (this one is my only real new idea) - any editor
	I'm against this. While we should discourage such posts, I don't like removing them, either. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	7. Leave the banter alone once an even partial on-point answer has been posted - any editor
	Agreed. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	8. Delete hate-talk in responses on sight - any editor
	Agreed, but it really has to be hate-speech, not just something somebody might possibly misconstrue as offensive. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	9. Warn users that do not agree with our cabal when their actions violate the rules of the cabal - all cabal members
	10. Warn users that abuse the RD on their talk page and escalate as needed (OK, the above one was a bit of a joke) - any editor
	Agreed, following the escalation procedure I listed above. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	11. Use "common sense" - all editors
	Agreed. ] 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm agreed with sturat on basically everything, although I take a somewhat stronger stance on number 6- it would be ''great'' if there were far less unhelpful posts but at the same time mere unhelpfulness doesn't warrant deletion, that's the slippery slope of deletionism that us seemingly-escatological-prophets have been raving about recently :) By the way, I think it's exaggerated how bad non-answers are, if you give an answer and somebody corrects you, there's nothing wrong with a simple "Oh right sorry", it only takes up one more line and the OP won't be confused as to whether to believe you or the other person. Other completely unhelpful answers like, admittedly, my response to ] don't really interfere with the quality of the understanding the OP will come away with after reading with the responses, and like I said only take up one line. But if we start deleting things unilaterally and there's disagreements, and conflict, a hundred thousand lines of argument springs up (like what's happening right now) and there's a big mess. Whether it's wrong or not (it's clear what I think -"not"- but my point is that it's irrelevant), it just won't work with too loose a deletion policy. I don't really know how to defend that assertion other than actually try a free-for-all deletion policy, but I'd rather not see that happen, and a balance could be hard to strike experimentally. Argue on, I guess. It would be nice to get some extremely general deletion rules down and maybe it will become apparent that this is a non-problem --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Purpose of RD==
	From ]: The reference desk or information desk of a library is a public service desk where professional librarians offer help to library users.
	From ]: A reference interview is structured (ideally) according to the following series of steps. First the library user states a question or describes a problem. The librarian then clarifies the user's information need, sometimes leading him or her back from a request for a specific resource (which may not be the best one for the problem at hand) to the actual information need as it manifests in the library user's life. Following that, the librarian suggests information resources that address the user's information need, explaining the nature and scope of information they contain and soliciting feedback. The reference interview closes when the librarian has provided the appropriate information or a referral to an outside resource where it can be found, and the user confirms that he or she has received the information needed.
	:: Word soup! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	However, we need to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an ], not a ], so the Reference Desk cannot function solely within the limits of Misplaced Pages. If that were the case, no reference desk would be needed, just a better search engine and instructions on how to use it. -] 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Great point. A librarian would/should never offer his/her opinion unless perhaps on a trivial subject but instead would direct the questioner to materials that present BOTH sides of the issue. Further, one librarian would handle the question, the entire library staff would not come over, ignoring their other work, and start a major BS session on the topic. That would be weird (imagine ] as ] saying that line). --] 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agree with the above. Particularly Justanother's point about opinions. Not entirely sure what's meant by "Reference Desk cannot function solely within the limits of Misplaced Pages" though- it ''is'' part of the project, and thus it shares the core goals and policies with the rest of the project. This is not article space, so some of the content policies are less important here. But we all need to remember that wikipedia is an ], not a chat room. ] ] 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::If we follow Justanothers line of reasoning, it means the first answer, right or wrong, good or bad, silly or serious, from anyone who happens to be lurking (yes it might even be me!) would close off the question completely for replies. Is that what he intended?--] 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, it's not what he ''said''. ] ] 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC
	::::Friday, the goal of Misplaced Pages is to make knowledge in the form of an encyclopaedia available at no cost. The goal of the Reference Desk is to offer help to users trying to find information. Some information is not in Misplaced Pages. Thus the Reference Desk has to go beyond Misplaced Pages in order to assist the users. Misplaced Pages is not an entire library. -] 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. The RD is part of Misplaced Pages. To me, this strongly suggests that pointing people to off-site information, for example, is irrelevant to the goals of the project. Again, I'm not suggesting it's worth ''causing trouble'' to enforce this, but irrelevant activities here should be discouraged. Also note that off-site information could easily be from a dubious source. I'm not against pointing people to google, or webmd for medical questions, or the like, but I think we should be conservative here. ] ] 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::No, LC, that is not what I mean. I was just making the point that, since the analogy was made, a BS session does not ensue in a library. But in a library you have trained researchers; here we do not. So answers should/will continue until the question is adequately answered. That is not the same as a BS session. Though I think more BS is acceptable here than at a library since, as someone already pointed out, we are partially paid in BS (though I am not sure if they put it quite that way - laff). I just think the BS should hold off until the answering has at least begun. Otherwise it is rudeness to the questioner. --] 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Hmmm. I thought actually that that had been agreed upon a couple of months ago by the RD community! 8-)--] 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Friday, the whole point of Misplaced Pages is to distribute information and maybe even knowledge. -]
	:::::::No, that's too broad a statement. What I ate for lunch today is information. But its got nothing to do with what Misplaced Pages is about. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia- this is the entire foundation. ] ] 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Even that would be legit under the proper circumstances. For example, if you ate spinach for lunch and wanted to know if it's batch number was included in the recent recall, that would be a valid question, IMO. ] 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:In that case all answers on the RDs a should consist of no more than a simplelink to our page on the subject and should not include any extra info or guidance whatsoever. Everybody happy?--] 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No, that doesn't make me happy. Misplaced Pages is incomplete. I'll say again, if the only purpose of the RD is to help people find the correct article in Misplaced Pages, replace it with a better search engine and instructions on how to use it. I believe that the RD should function not only on that level. -] 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Friday says that we should restrict our answers to info inside Misplaced Pages, since info on outside sources might be "irrelevant" or "dubious." I reject this view completely. Much info INSIDE Misplaced Pages is dubious, as witnessed by frequent edit wars, and the many completely unreferenced articles, a hundred or so of which I may tag as such on a given day, not to mention the articles which have been vandalized. There are many good sources of information other than Misplaced Pages, including real life books and print periodicals. I have over the years purchased some good reference books on 19th century electrical technology, and I know where more are in a research library at a university, as well as paying for online access to some print publications and newspaper archives, and I have used them in answering RD questions as well as in writing and improving articles. Any source that would be adequate as a reference in a Misplaced Pages article is adequate for a Ref Desk answer. Also consider that if a questioner has done due diligence and looked at the relevant articles, and the info they need is not there, there is the opportunity to add to the article the desired info (if it is of general interest). Please do not even hint that punishments might be applicable for such work. A Real Life Reference Desk Librarian (RLRDL) is by no means restricted to referring an inquiring mind to materials in the library's collection. She can refer the patron to a research library, or she can refer the patron to material in many libraries nationwide through interlibrary loan, and can do that without fear of being punished by overzealous library police. ] 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Agreed (although I do think Misplaced Pages is usually, but not always, a good source). Also, the opening quote did say a Ref Librarian will offer "a referral to an outside resource where it can be found", just as we should. Whether the source is internal to Misplaced Pages or external is irrelevant, the best source should always be used, whichever that is. Also, the library staff most definitely does give opinions, for example, in response to the question, "what's a good book for a 5 year old having to deal with the death of a grandparent ?". And, if the Ref Librarian is asked a simple factual question, where they know the answer, like "who was the US President during the Civil War", they may very well answer from "personal knowledge" rather than refer the customer to a reference where they can research it themselves. Of course, if asked for a ref, they would then provide one. ] 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Friday, the RD isn't a big brain-powered search engine. We make information available to people, we don't make wikipedia available to people. We share a common mission with wikipedia, but we don't necessarily have to use wikipedia in our answers. Like it or not wikipedia has only a tiny fraction of the info available on the internet, and an infintesimal fraction of all the info in the world; it's unreasonable to expect us to carry out our mission restricted to serving up wikipedian content. WP exists to serve not to be served. A twist on words, yes, and it's isn't exactly what you said but I think it's important to understanding the dynamic between wp and the rd. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Friday, have any of the above comments changed your thinking on this topic at all? There's a pretty good weight behind this subject but there needs to be consensus so that conflict can be avoided in the future. -] 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Paid in BS? ==
	Justanother wrote, ''Though I think more BS is acceptable here than at a library since, as someone already pointed out, we are partially paid in BS''. I've heard this idea before, and I just don't think this makes any sense at all. Nobody else gets "paid in BS" on Misplaced Pages. If you want to help the project, you're free to do so. But nobody can demand the right to use project pages for functions other than their purpose as "payment" for their work. -- ] 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Listen, we do what we do for the reasons we do it. It is really not up to anyone to judge our reasons, only our output and contributions. I like the BS and consider it part of the recompense for my efforts here; the other parts being satisfaction of "getting it right", the enjoyment of helping another and my "knowledge buff" tendency. No particular order there. So I, for one, get partially paid in BS. You get paid in what you get paid. The BS is normal banter that happens when people get together and have fun doing useful work. It should not be suppressed. If you don't like then don't read it. Or do you think that you should dictate the working conditions here? Is that what this is about? --] 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Agree with Justanother. But Im wondering whether the disadvantages of contributing to WP are starting to outweigh the advantages. I came here to share my knowledge and experiece and to help people. But lately I find myself asking: Is all the ingratitude and downright offensive criticism really worth the paltry satisfaction I get from the odd good answer or merry innocent quip?--] 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, well, LC, just so long as you don't also get paid in pulling people's chains or torquing people off (smile) --] 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Sorry I dont get it 8-|--] 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::In case anyone somehow missed it, ] a place to share your own knowledge and experience. Maybe ] is closer to that. ] ] 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::As another editor once said to me "Pull the other one, it has bells on." --] 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Paraphrased from ] ... "what the **** are you talking about that rule can't possibly apply to the RD!" --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Friday, once again from ] "The above guidelines apply to articles on Misplaced Pages." RD is not an article. --] 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::If you're into the exact written words, you need to read the whole thing. It includes "Please do not use Misplaced Pages for any of the following" and one of the following is "Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic." I'm not saying we need to be super strict about this outside of article space, but it's very clearly outside the purpose of the project to give our own opinions. Our own opinions ''about Misplaced Pages'' are relevant, of course, and are welcome in user or project space. This is a tremendously relevant point, and I think a lack of understanding of this is behind much of our disagreements here about the reference desk. All editors, working on ''any part of the project'' need to understand the goals and policies of the project. ] ] 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::You should know that pulling legs too hard is not approved of! 8-|
	:::I'm frankly amazed that you've taken all this BS light current. But surely you can find other projects on wikipedia that tilt that net loss into a gain; just drop RD for awhile --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I would but I do feel its important to stand up against censor ship and burocracy 8-|--] 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Friday, just so you understand that 1) you are quoting from a bit that '''specifically''' does not apply to the RD and 2) it is not "lack of understanding", it is disagreement. I think that many of us believe that the RD, especially the Misc. desk, should allow some OR in answering questions. That issue being entirely separate from the BS or banter issue. They are two separate issues. Regarding ], I think that the OR should be supported so if someone asks "Do you think a potato cannon could kill someone" then, unless we can find studies to support, we are left with OR hopefully backed by some info about kinetic energy, etc. --] 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm not saying OR is our worst problem here and I'm not saying we need to stamp it out with an iron fist- I just hope that the people doing it understand that it's actually outside the scope of the project. I don't see anything to support your assertion that what I'm saying specifically does not apply here, where do you? Yes, ] is primarily about article space, but it's also an explanation of the purpose and scope of the project- there are many things in there that very clearly apply outside of mainspace. But perhaps this is too fine a point for right now? Our bigger problems are things other than OR, I think we both agree on that. ] ] 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Oh, I think we mostly agree on many things about these issues. Here is the point I make, see the line under the sub-heading ]. The RD is a community project, not an article. I agree that OR is a bit off-purpose and not in keeping with "The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk." However I do not think the library desk is a valid model for the RD. It is more like "]" or your knowledgable Uncle Mike. --] 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::] is very high in my ]. Do not mock Him!] 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It is also like ] or ] but those get props for best answers. We get yelled at (joke) --] 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Experts-Exchange, at least, sounds quite different. They're both websites where people ask questions, but the devil is in the details. ] ] 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Point being that all those sources, including my Uncle Mike, deal in OR. Point being that we only pay lip service here to the library model. A librarian refers you to the answer; we just answer and perhaps provide references and, know what, that seems to be what the intro blurb instructs us to do?--] 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::You're talking about where it says we should link to Misplaced Pages articles? ] ] 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	No, I had this part more in mind "Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to." I may well be able to provide more of an answer than just a link to a wikipedia article and I will also link as appropriate so I will take care of both instructions and still have room for opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a library. There are no recipe books here. If someone asks me how to prepare pecan pie I will tell them from my experience and direct them to what, in my opinion, is a decent recipe on the net. --] 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Ref Desk volunteers fined in chastisements, removals, and blocks===
	The inverse of the above is that chastisements, removals, and blocks are like "fines", so should be used sparingly. If these fines exceed the "payments", then working the Ref Desk becomes a net negative, and we all leave. ] 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Everyone can make their own choices about whether to edit or not. -- ] 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I have to agree with sczenz, we should make policy to get things right, not to pander to the editors (no matter how noble our work may be =) ) --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think the "customers" (question askers) and "employees" (Ref Desk volunteers) concerns should both be taken equally, neither should be ignored. ] 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::If we follow policies and guidelines everything should just work- IMO that's the idea behind ]. I'm not so much concerned about the human aspect of the problem as I am about finding a reasonable application of the rules to the reference desk --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Fie to ] and ] who seek to destroy the RD through Wikilawyering and penalties for good-faith efforts to answer questions. ] 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Origins and purpose of RD ==
	At some point in the dim and distant past some wikipedians must have decided that a 'library type' reference desk would be a good idea. THey would then have discussed it interminably putting arguments for against and sideways and sometimes ]ly or ]ly (my favorite word), and finally, after a few years of bitter wrangling and beating about the bush started one.
	Now, During these discussions, did any arguments as to the '''purpose''' of the RDs surface? I wasnt here so I dont know. I assume though that the consensis at the time was that it was a good idea. Has that consensus changed and if so, can a new consensus agree to dispense with the RDs.
	I have elsewhere given my reasons in favor of keeping the RDs. (as a QC check on the articles).
	The similarity of the RDs with a real library, are of course, minimal:
	*Desks in libraries know their books are ok (theye been published by reputable forms etc). All our stuff is suspect.
	*Libraries employ proessional librarians or information people to help; we use anyone who happens to be passing and '''volunteers'''
	*Libraries pay their staff.
	*Libraries are not encyclopedias.
	*Library staff get respect from the users (usually) RD volunteers get quite a lot of abuse and cricisism
	*Library staff do not go and get the book for you, open it, and start reading the contents to you like a bedtime story (you have to pay extra for that--- not a joke with any sexual or other implied meaning whatsoever!!). Yet this very thing is what we as RD staff are being asked to do more and more rather than merely referring a reader to the shelf on which his information may be found.
	People here (WP) need to decide on the purpose of the RD and whilst they are deciding (which could take another copuple of years), we should go back to the '''original aims,''' which were....?? When the original aims have been rediscoverd, a simple set of guidelins for behaviour should be drawn up for editors and questioners alike as I have said and initialed about three times now, only to be interrupted by others (usually admins) who want no rules.
	--] 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:FWIW I never really took that idea seriously, and it seems like few other people did --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Lollipop Guild==
	Whatever happened to the -] 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It was set up just sort of as a fun thing if I remember correctly. For a while, that helped with the cohesiveness here a little. --] 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I would probably join if we dumped the oh-so-funny elitist newbie-bashing crap and replaced it all with "Sometimes people unfamiliar with ] act in a manner that we might see as rude but we promise to continue to be tolerant and helpful". --] 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Amen. I'd also like to kill-with-fire some of the in-jokes that crop up from time to time. I was embarrassed as hell every time I saw an oh-so-clever individual (by which I mean dumbass) trot out the words 'suitly emphazi' to mock another Ref Desk editor's (bad) or neophyte-possibly-with-English-as-a-second-language questioner's (worse) ineloquently phrased question or answer. ](]) 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ouch. I have to fess up to doing that. But in my defense, I saw it used by RD regulars all over the place when I first started posting, and at the time I didn't realise its offensiveness. ] 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I'm sure we've all made mistakes at the Ref Desk (and/or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages) in our time here. I should have spoken up when I first saw it start to appear with regularity, rather than just rolling my eyes. I think the important thing is that people come away from the discussions here aware of two key points.
	:::::#Letting things fester until they explode isn't a good way to deal with our problems here. SCZenz, Light current, Friday, and all the others are good editors and (from what I can tell) good people. There's been a lot of unfortunate nastiness circulating these days, and I wish it would stop. We need to do a better job of providing feedback &ndash; positive and negative &ndash; to our fellow contributors.
	:::::#The level of decorum and courtesy should be higher on pages where there are likely to be a lot of newbies. It's one thing to share private jokes and some friendly ribbing on the talk pages of long-time users. It's another, rather unfortunate thing when a person's first experience with Misplaced Pages is derision ('suitly emphazi' etc.) and confusing references to seagulls and bagels. ](]) 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Well TOAT, you may be surprised to learn that I tend to agree with your numbered points above. I'm a firm believer in gentle persuasion and reasoning (esp if its from 2 or more editors) than one big stick from one Admin with a zealous mission. I repeat again that the only way to make acceptable RD behaviour clear is to formulate guidelines.
	::::::Everyone will have a view of a comment or answer that necessarily depends upon his own particular judgement. In turn that judgement will have been learned or developed over a number of years at home, in school, in church, at college, in work etc. IOW peoples judgement is influenced (some may say tainted or programmed) by their surroundings and exposure to others to a large extent. What we must try to do here is not to supress peoples judgement (for that is what they truly believe) but to try to enlighten them and broaden their minds. Similarly what offends one person may go completely over the head of another. Im sure if I knew you well, I could find something that would offend you grossly, but would not matter in the slightest to your friend.
	::::::I personally find lots of material on WP either offensive, disgusting or just plian stupid. But I put that down to '''ME''' not to the originators. I realise that to be a true Wikipwedian (or indeed a developed human being) one has to take all that life throws at you either verbally or in written form. This does become easier the older you get.
	::::::It is not true that younger people are more open minded than thier elders-- quite the reverse (generally). Maturity leads to tolerance. Tolerance is in short supply in certain areas of WP 8-|--] 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==What kinds of questions are allowed on the Reference Desk?==
	I firmly believe that any question or comment posted by a user that can be answered in a way that increases the user's knowledge should be answered. Even trolling questions, like some we've had about race, can be a vehicle for learning. -] 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You think people who come here to troll want to ''learn''? This is.. surprising to me. I'd suggest not wasting our time on trolls. ] ] 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm generally not a deletionist, but the problem with trollish questions is a) when they're answered, the questioner frequently digs deeper with more (and worse) trollish questions (perhaps because of the encouragement), and b) they become a magnet for trollish ''answers''. If every question, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or bad-faith, was answered factually, and not answered in the spirit in which it was asked, I wouldn't have a problem with any trollish questions. But unfortunately that doesn't happen very often. ] 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Anchoress, fortunately, that's not *usually* the case on the RD. In fact, most questioners don't even seem to come back to get their answers-] 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's true that most questioners don't even come back for their answers, but it's been my observation that the worst trolls post serially, and their contributions degenerate. And so do the answers. ] 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Friday, you don't have to waste your time helping trolls learn. It's volunteer. -] 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Feeding the trolls hurts us all. ] ] 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::To look at the flip side: does any one think that trolls can in some cases actually contribute something positve to WP. THis is a serious Q not a troll. THe implied Q is of course: who and why are the trolls? --] 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think we should find a way to harness their energy! Like, build an anger cage that traps it all and converts it into electricity. Then we'd have a party or something. Hopefully I answered that question well. ] 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I find it hard to believe that most people don't come back for answers to their questions. What most people don't do is leave any evidence they've checked back, such as a query or an acknowledgement. ] 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I thought thats what the RDs were!--] 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Really, trolls are only trolls if you let them be trolls. If you take a trolling question and treat it seriously and answer it, it's finished. You delete it, it just pops back up. There have been a few recurring trolls lately, but only a few. Trolls want attention but you can choose what, how and when you feed them. (Granted that there will always be some extreme exceptions.) -] 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And if you answer one question, and they ask a more offensive follow-up? -- ] 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Of course there is a point where things should be deleted. I've done it myself. Offhand I can't recall a troll digging a hole deeper and deeper the more we've poured water into it. -] 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Really, when I started this subtopic, the emphasis was on the first sentence. The troll sentence was 20% of my point. The first sentence was supposed to be the 80%. I was thinking more about opinion questions and race questions. -] 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::A troll is very difficult to detect on the first Q. Ive been mistaken myself a few times. The follow up Q usually gives more of an indication, whilst the third Q usually confirms it. At that point (and at that point only) ALL postings and answers to the troll should be deleted. Thats my view anyway! 8-)--] 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, there are specific guidelines somewhere on Misplaced Pages, maybe even a policy, that says ] trumps ]. -] 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::LC, I am shocked that you've been mistaken for a Troll!!!! You didn't get blocked or anything, did you??? ;-) -] 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ive been called one a few times. Thats because I say things that others disagree with or becuase I sometimes make a merry quip on the RDs.--] 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Besides, everyone's forgetting, the trolls haven't been the problem, the problem has been the editors having conflict amongst themselves. -] 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes! Good observation!--] 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Subpage? ==
	Anyone think maybe ] or something similiar could be used for a specific statement about the purpose of the RD? If we kept it strictly to things that were generally agreed upon, maybe having such a thing could prevent a similiar conversation from coming up again in a year's time. ] ] 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:That is a good idea!--] 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I made a tiny little start, just using content that was already on the RD pages, so there shouldn't be anything there that anyone disagrees with. ] ] 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::BTW Is it a talk page or a project page? ie can we post to it?--] 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think Friday's saying it's for consensus statements only. -] 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::(I'm ''suggesting'' this- I have no magical right to ''dictate''.) ] ] 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks, that seems obvious but it isn't to some. -] 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::(ec) It's in project space, and it has a talk page of course. I ''hope'' other people edit it, otherwise I'm just talking to myself. However I suggest that to avoid conflict, we should only put things in that page that we think there's general agreement on. Let's move slowly here, maybe we'll get some useful result. ] ] 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The second half of the last sentence is missing "if possible" somewhere in there. -] 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Add it if you like- but I was ''just'' using language that already was written. To me, "should" covers "if possible"- there's a difference between "should" and "must". ] ] 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's a Misplaced Pages project page, whose content is governed by the wiki process. That means that you ''can'' put anything you want there, or remove anything you want, but that it's probably best to limit things to consensus statements to avoid edit wars. -- ] 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::No lets say 'hopefully' or by the 'Grace of God' or something--] 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::The consensus was that the page was for consensus. -] 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::So lets get hammering it out on its talk page!--] 02:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::To be honest, even after taking a couple of hours to go out to eat, I'm exhausted! -] 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well have a little rest, a few beers etc. watch a bit of TV, get some sleep. Then we'll see you back!--] 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I'm not sure what "it's a project space" means, but suspect it means the Ref Desk should be treated as an article rather than a talk page. If so, I strongly disagree. The form and function are both like that of a talk page (allow multiple voices, add signatures, don't just delete anything because you disagree, etc.), so it should be considered a talk page, not an article page. If nobody disagrees, I will change the statement accordingly. ] 06:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It means it's a non-article page whose purpose is to serve the project, or technically simply that the name begins with "Misplaced Pages:". I'm not sure declaring the ref desk a talk page is really the right approach; it really doesn't fit with existing definitions. -- ] 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::This page in itself ] is instruction creep. This is just another way to sanction ambiguous actions taken here. It fundamentally does not solve the problem. Why are we not listening? --] 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think we're mostly trying our best. Can you be more clear about what your suggestion is? ] ] 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::As I pointed out at that /purpose talk page and somewhere else on this page, the RD shares a common purpose with WP (to make information more available) but shouldn't have to serve it. I guess everyone likes to think that their project is an exception to the definition but this really does seem like a valid case. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== The "real" dispute? ==
	After discussion with SCzenz I think I figured something out. I am going to '''try''' to make these my final words. Feel free to use any of my comments anywhere you like. Part of the problem seems to be a disagreement in what the RD should look like; should it look like article-space or community-space. Some might think it is unprofessional that it looks like community-space since it might be the first place a newcomer spends time or posts. Community space is often characterized by the lighthearted irreverance that pervades the entire project outside of article-space and I can point at many many policies and advices that are written in a lighthearted irreverent vein ex. ], ], many more. This question of the nature of the RD is the elephant in the room here. I think we all agree that abuse of the RD is inappropriate. But we talk about that as if that were the dispute. I think the real dispute is article-space or community space? I think it is community-space. Other might think it should more resemble article-space. I think if someone is trying to make the RD all serious looking, if they are trying to make the RD look like article-space rather than community-space, then I think they are fighting a losing battle.The best it will be is effective. I think we all agree that actions which seriously reduce its effectiveness are inappropriate. --] 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I hadn't thought of it that way. Why are you bowing out of the dialogue? -] 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I have other fish to fry and have said everything I have to say including my opinion on this "meta" topic. I will try to contribute if I have more to say later. --] 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, when somebody looks something up in an encylopaedia, there's no conversation. When someone asks a question at a reference desk, there's a conversation. I think responses are usually tailored to the questioner, to the age, tone, nature of the question, although once I did accuse a 60-something year old woman of asking a homework question. -] 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Ah yes I remember that one 8-) We all make mistkes! Oops--] 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I remember that too. Usually I just answer homework questions anyway, or at least provide perhaps too-useful links. Sorry! --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:It's a page for the general public, not specifically for Wikipedians&mdash;or rather, a place where the former come to the latter for help. And it's linked from the main page. Ergo it is ''public'' space, although not an article, much as the main page itself is. Disagreements on this may be the core of the issue... but I don't know what arguments exist that justify calling it "community-space"... or for that matter, what ''is'' community space, and what are other examples? -- ] 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::You make a very important point here- this needs to be ''more'' public-friendly than project space typically is, due to its nature as the reference desk- we all need to understand this well. ] ] 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Mm yes very good point. It's definately not article space but it's not community space either. It's a delicate balance to strike. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it's clear from convention, usage, and (obviously) naming that the RD is project space, not article space. I've not heard of anythign called "community space" so I assume you mean project space. However we should keep in mind that the general expectation in project space is that you're discussing some aspect of the ''project'', not just chatting. I don't think people are objecting to any and all humor- saying that we need ''some'' standards at the RD is not saying we need to be ultra-strict. ] ] 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::By its very nature, it's a place where people interact, asking and answering questions. -] 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Its community space. --] 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Everyone, please see ]. This is, by definition, project space. There is nothing called "community space". ] ] 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:No we've just invented a new space: Community space: like the foyer of the library where everyone mixes <s>and chats</s>.
	--] 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Since this is an issue. The terms "community-space" and "article-space" are mine. I think we all know what they mean. See ] link right off the main navigation box on the left - the RD is there. Also see ] for the distinct difference in rules applicable to the two "spaces". --] 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The actual spaces that people agree exist are discussed at ]. The spaces listed there will have an agreed-upon meaning. Newly-made-up ones will not. ] ] 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::OK, REAL DISPUTE: '''Article Namespace vs. Project Namespace'''. Take a look then, it is project namespace (starts with "Misplaced Pages" prefix). So let's stop talking semantics and discuss what this aspect of the project namespace should look like. I think it should look like most other parts of project namespace, irreverent but effective. Others may think it should look like article namespace, encyclopedic. I think my view is more defensible since it is, after all, project namespace, not article namespace. --] 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::It certainly cannnot be considered encyclopedic!--] 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::The important distinction from other project pages, as pointed out above, is that the RD by its nature needs to be more friendly and accessable to new users or the general public. I've added language to this effect to the purpose subpage. ] ] 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::It looks more like ] to me: "meant for both readers and editors of Misplaced Pages, and should promote content and encourage contribution", though which wiki prefix the desk is under should not matter all that much. Maybe "promote content" should go as the #1 item on Friday's purpose subpage?] 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::You may be onto something- I think the RD predates portals? If it's really more like a portal, maybe it should move. ] ] 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Should this talk not now be moved to the relevant talk page?--] 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Portal namspace for the entire project? I don't think so. "Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas." We have a portal: ] but the real question is what should the RDs "look like"; informal forum for asking and answering questions or formal forum for asking and answering questions. If the latter, we may want to consider making it entirely moderated. All questions and answers submitted to a moderator that will vet them, edit them, and post them. Cause it is either that or keep it very light on the delete key, IMO. --] 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I believe it's a "talk namespace", due to the conversational nature (]) for answering questions. ] 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Ah, but talk pages have well-defined topics that they stick to, right? -- ] 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::An article talk page is limited to discussion of the subject of that article. The subject of the Ref Desk is the sum of all human knowledge, however, so talk only needs to be limited to that. ] 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::A page whose only limitations are to discuss "the sum of all human knowledge" is a discussion forum. ]. -- ] 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::What makes a page a discussion forum is not so much the topic as the method of discussion. For example, if I have a 3-legged cat, it's not appropriate for me to just announce that and list some pics so everybody can see. However, if a question was asked about 3-legged cats ("is it safe to let my 3-legged cat outside ?"), then, an answer in the form of "yes, I let mine out all the time, and it's done fine for 10 years now" is appropriate. ] 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	How about a "Desk" namespace? :-) ] 10:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	This is what I thought justanother was talking about.. Article space is obvious, Community space is primarily for editors; stuff like esperanza and all of the wikipedia policies, as well as internal affairs like admin noticeboard and ArbCom, Project space is for wiki projects that directly serve the mainspace like the featured picture candidates, articles for deletion, and I'd argue all of the talk pages. By these definintions the RD seems somewhat unique.. it certainly doesn't serve the mainspace directly, it's not "Community space" (really a kind of off-to-the-side subset of project space) since it's so open to newbies as SCZenz pointed out, and it's definately not article space. What we've got to decide is which aspects of each space we should adopt for the RD. I know some people want it to resemble the article space for formality, and others want it treated like a talk page.. why not talk page format while striving to provide article-space-quality responses? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, that last sentence sounds right. -] 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree. ] 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Process to clarify the Ref Desk rules ==
	As there is considerable disagreement on which Misplaced Pages policies apply to the Ref Desk, and which do not, I feel we need to build a consensus, then write up the interpretation of those Misplaced Pages rules, as they apply to the RD, on a Ref Desk Policy Page. While there is a minority that feels no consensus is needed, and they may act alone based on their own interpretation of the rules, I feel the majority believes that consensus is needed. The problem we've had in building a consensus is that, as an issue is brought up, it's discussed, but we never "decide" anything, we just go on to debate the next issue. Instead, we need to take the issues on one at a time, build a consensus (and yes, that means saying we '''support''' or '''oppose''' each specific proposal), then document that consensus on a Ref Desk Policy Page, then move on to the next issue under dispute. As a first step, we need to identify the Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. ] 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Sounds like a plan, insofar as the decisions made are consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. It wouldn't have been my first choice&mdash;you're proposing a very bureaucratic procedure&mdash;but if a discussion of issues one at a time helps people figure this out, then so be it. Except that I don't really think a "support"/"oppose" structure is consistent with making good decisions or even helpful for determining consensus; I'd propose instead that we ''discuss'' until we have some sort of agreement. -- ] 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I simply don't understand how you can ever form a consensus (or know what the consensus is) by viewing pages of discussions, with various opinions offered (except, perhaps, on easy issues, where 90% of the opinion is in one direction). How could that ever lead to a uniform set of rules if you never actually ask people specifically if they support or oppose those rules ? ] 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It happens all over Misplaced Pages, all the time. One way would be to work on the purpose we could collectively use the wiki process to edit ] until we reached wording we all liked. Then, with an agreed-upon purpose in mind, we could perhaps make other pages to tackle other issues. -- ] 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't believe Misplaced Pages encourages people to edit policy pages until after a consensus has been reached, to avoid constant rule changes and edit wars. ] 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Misplaced Pages encourages to ]. That means you ''can'' edit pages without pre-established consensus, but that you shouldn't push things too hard or you'll just get reverted. Sometimes people ''do'' edit policy pages out of the blow, and this sometimes results in much changing-and-changing-back with simltaneous discussion; the result, sometimes at least, is that eventually someone introduces a compromise wording that everyone can accept. That ''is'' the wiki process. -- ] 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Do you have a reference that says it's OK to directly change a policy page without consensus ? I don't think you're right, there. ] 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::There has been a movement towards stricter regulation of policy pages of late, as for example is reflected in the current wording of ], but it remains the case that edits are made and reverted on policy pages all the time. It's certainly okay to change a policy page without a straw poll, if you believe it reflects consensus, and there are some users who still follow the school of thought that a bold edit to a page is an important starting point for discussion. In any case, it is a foundation issue that the wiki process is (with few exceptions) the final arbiter of content. Besides, ] is hardly a major policy page; it's just a useful page to edit and come up with something we can agree on. -- ] 09:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Hmm. When does a draft policy page become a real active policy TITQ 8-(--] 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::When a wide variety of editors have looked at it, and there's consensus on its talk page. -- ] 09:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I certainly agree that we need to build a consensus on what the RD function is an which policies should apply. Discussion is fine , but at some point, decisions need to be made 8-|--] 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes. Certain behaviors that have occurred are simply not acceptable to the majority of editors and consensus has to be reached on their acceptability. -] 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Do people agree or disagree, that the starting point for the RD "rules" should be our standard Misplaced Pages rules? If we can agree to start there, this would save lots of time. ] ] 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:PS. SCZenz is right- ] is meant to be edited. This is a page that was started ''yesterday'', people- it's not like it has years of discussion already put into it. I've not worried about slapping a policy or guideline tag or anything on it- it's too immature right now. If it turns into something useful, we can label it later. But first it needs to turn into something useful. ] ] 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes I don't think friday would confuse the pages of RD talk comments for consensus on /Purpose. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== List of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute ==
	Here I wish to only build a list of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. I don't wish to discuss them here, just build a list. That discussion can happen elsewhere. Please add any issues I missed to the list. Also, add a link after each item to where that discussion is or has occurred, if you have one:
	*Purpose of the Ref Desk
	*Is the Ref Desk considered to be like an article or like a talk page ?
	*Rules for deletion
	:*Questions
	:*Responses
	*Is opinion allowed
	:*Questions which contain an opinion
	:*Questions which solicit an opinion
	:*Answers
	*Are references required for all statements of fact ?
	:*Are answers containing original research allowed?
	*Are answers with references outside of Misplaced Pages allowed ?
	*Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ?
	:*If still related to the topic
	:*If totally unrelated
	*Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ?
	*Is humor allowed ?
	*Is sexual content allowed ?
	*Are poorly written questions allowed ?
	*Should signatures be required ?
	:*Question
	:*Answer
	*May we edit the posts of others ?
	:*The title
	:*The original question
	:*The responses
	*Is "original research" allowed ?
	] 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I added the question on whether original research is allowed, and referenced it to the discussion somewhere above, because at least one editor stated that OR should be avoided or disallowed at the RD. Since I disagree with that opinion, I would like clarification here. Following Stu's wish, I wont discuss the merits of OR at the RD here.---] 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the addition. ] 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I've added "*May we edit the posts of others ?" to the list. ] 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I've added '*Is "original research" allowed ?' to the list. ] 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Issues where consensus has already been reached===
	Of the above, I believe the following have been decided by consensus:
	*Rules for deletion ? '''The guidelines are listed here:'''
	*Are answers with references outside of Misplaced Pages allowed ? '''Yes.'''
	*Are references required for all statements of fact ? '''Required, no. Encouraged, yes.'''
	*Is humor allowed ? '''Yes, in moderation, but only after one serious answer has been given.'''
	*Is sexual content allowed ? '''Yes, but not prurient sexual content, and only in response to a sexual question.'''
	*Should signatures be required ? '''Yes.'''
	*May we edit the posts of others ? '''See below.'''
	:*The title ? '''Yes, but only add to the title, as the original title may be used as a search keyword.'''
	:*The original question ? '''Yes, but for format only, not to add links or fix spelling.'''
	:*The responses ? '''Yes, but for format only, not to add links or fix spelling.'''
	] 08:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Should responses be edited for content? '''No, but they may be deleted.'''
	]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I've added "*Are answers with references outside of Misplaced Pages allowed ? '''Yes.'''" to the list, as I believe there is a consensus on this. ] 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The consensus on some of these are subject to caveats. Humor and sexual content are both allowed, but neither can be allowed to interfere with the functioning of the desk. -- ] 08:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And in my view, sexual answers (explicit or implied) to non-sexual questions essentially always interfere. -- ] 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's a good point, and, although I personally disagree, I think the consensus is with you there, and have noted so above. ] 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Do you also mean any answer that could possibly be misconstrued into anything remotely related to sex by '''anyone at all''' reading RD? If so I think you are barking at the moon.--] 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yeah I think that's the consensus that too many people are uncomforable with sexual humor for it to be allowed. Sorry anchoress I gotta agree with them on this one --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Sorry? I haven't commented here before, how is this in response to me? ] 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree with the points of consensus and agree that gratuitous sexual content is inappropriate. It would offend my mother and we don't know if the questioner is 8 or 28. There iss a 13 or 14 year old running for ArbCom and you wouldn't have known the age if it hadn't been stated. It isn't appropriate to answer an 10 year old's non-sexual question with sexual innuendo. -] 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, I would have preferred that sexual humor be allowed, but the consensus is to ban it, so I have clarified above that sexual humor is not allowed. ] 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why are we singling out sexual humor. What about:
	:::*racist humor,
	:::*ageist humor,
	:::*sexual orientaion humor,
	:::*anti admin humor,
	:::*anti newbie humor,
	:::*political humour,
	:::*humor about dead people,
	:::*humor about ill people,
	:::*humor about the homeless,
	:::*humor about men,
	:::*humor about women,
	:::*humor about children,
	:::*humor about toilets,
	:::*humor about disabilities,
	:::*humor about religion,
	:::*humor about toilet habits,
	:::*humor about other bodily functions.
	Why the hell should SEX be singled out for gods sake!! If we ban sex humor '''all''' the above should also be banned. In fact everything should be banned. THat would solve the problem completely! No answers at all can be given in case they upset someone! 8-(--] 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I added the thing about editing vs deleting. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	We appear to have an overwhelming consensus on the rules for deletion, so I've included them above. ] 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	We also appear to have consensus on "*May we edit the posts of others ?", so it's been addded above. ] 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Clarified what I believe to be the consensus on humor, that no jokes are allowed until a serious answer is given. ] 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This is not indicative of current practice, so I don't think there's consensus. See my effort to do just that , and the subsequent . ] ] 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No, it's not current practice. In fact, I've included jokes before serious answers were given. However, there seems to be consensus that this should no longer be allowed, in the future. If you still disagree that a consensus has been reached, we can open that point back up for discussion. ] 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I disagree on the banning (for no particular reason) of a particular class of jokes as I outlined above.--] 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::It is probably best not to single out a certain type of joke as inappropriate. There are several types that are inappropriate but only sexual jokes have been a problem and that's why they've been discussed. There are other guidelines like ] and don't bite the n00bs or whatever that could conceivably address the issue. -] 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::OK, perhaps I read the consensus incorrectly on this item. I've removed it above and opened a new section to call for people to say if they support or oppose allowing sexual humor. ] 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==== "Disruption" ====
	Naturally nothing must interfere with Rds or cause ] there. Its the defn of ] with operation that is difficult. For instance, from our page:
	<blockquote>
	<s>Disruption is the art of asking better questions, challenging conventional wisdom and overturning assumptions and prejudices that get in the way of imagining new possibilities and visionary ideas.</s>
	</blockquote> --] 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think you're kind of muddying the waters here... Surely we can all agree that things which interfere with the purpose of the reference desk (whatever that is, exactly) are to be avoided? -- ] 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Well I was just looking for a definition of this commonly used term on WP. I was surprised to find that one.--] 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Also, until we have defined the purpose of the RDS I dont see how we can agree on what interferes with that purpose 8-)--] 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Good point, that should be given a higher priority. ] 09:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Also, we don't all agree that "avoiding disruption" is a justification for ignoring the consensus and deleting anything we personally find to be "disruptive". For example, since we agree that non-prurient sexual questions are allowed, no editor is permitted to decide that such questions are disruptive and then delete them, unilaterally. For example, if the question was "what is the average age of onset of menstruation in Norwegian women", nobody can decide to delete that because such talk offends them. ] 09:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You're generally correct, yes&mdash;I don't propose to remove questions unless they constitute clear trolling. But we're getting ahead of ourselves in any case. All I was saying (in response to LC's somewhat counterintuitive definition of "disruption") was that we can agree that things that interfere with the purpose of the desk ought to be avoided; if we're going ahead with your point-by-point discussion idea, we can get to what to do about such interference at a later step. -- ] 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Its not my definition at all. Its from our page. I dont know if its someone trying to disrupt that page, or a proper defn . It looks like interference with the page so Ive disrupted (erased) it 8-(--] 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I would like to identify categories of behavior which constitute disruption, and write rules against them, once a consensus exists that such behavior is disruption, and disruption worthy of removal. Otherwise, there is bound to be disagreement over what is disruptive and what is not. After all, without such rules, every user will follow their own definition, with some thinking any humor is disruptive, some thinking any opinions are disruptive, and others thinking any facts they disagree with are disruptive. We can't just say "if you find something disruptive, then ignore all the rules and delete it", or we will end up with no rules at all, once again. ] 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	To my mind, the term 'disruption' implies quite a serious action that prevents or hinders other editors from using the page in question easaily. Examples might include:
	*serious acts of vandalism like blanking,
	*modifying/deleting others comments or hdgs to change their meaning
	*changing the apparent chronology of posts,
	*any modification to the page that makes it harder to read/understand.
	*usurping others posts (destroys the logical flow of page)
	*posting comment in the wrong places#
	etc.
	Continued discussion on a relevant topic, whist undesirable, I do not consider ''disruption''.--] 10:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Light current, towards the bottom of your list I think I'm guilty but with no intent of criminal behavior. Disruption must have ill intent. -] 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Why on earth would we need rules about reference desk disruption?? This is really bizarre and only demonstrates that some of the people involved here don't understand how wikipedia works. Disruption of Misplaced Pages is ''already against the rules''. What more do we need? ] ] 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah lots of people do this without thinking, but it reall does make the page hard top read and some comments are effectively buried, or atleast overshadowed by others.--] 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Because one persons view of disruption is not necessarily the same as others views.--] 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes. Light current was accused of disruption to make a point for making a post that said "chit chat" or something similar. He was making a point but that was hardly disruptive. The outcome of this whole discussion won't necessarily be rules or policies but obviously some discussion and consensus is needed. -] 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::No amount of rule-making can replace human judgment about what is or is not disruption. This is why, when cases come up, we discuss them. Making rules for everything ahead of time is not how Misplaced Pages works. ] ] 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If your judgment was sound, we might trust you to decide for yourself what disruption is. However, you have demonstrated a singular lack of judgment that means we no longer trust you to decide what constitutes disruption. I suggest you read ], and listen to what they say. Almost nothing which you call disruption actually qualifies. ] 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Must agree with StuRat, Friday. I know you mean well. It is possible to have "good sense" (thanks Clio) about some things but not others. Strengths and weaknesses, we all have them. -] 05:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Agree with StuRat, Friday, as to your sense of disruption not tracking 100 % with mine. ] 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	This all seems needlessly complicated. I think StuRat's attempts are a good try, but this whole process seems to be so much more detailed, and so much more picky, than it should be, no? I totally understand that one person's idea of humour is different from another, and I totally agree that racism, ageism, etc can be as offensive as sexism. I am also (as I have said before) not a deletionist, but when editors are so attached to our contributions it makes anything less unworkable. I think the simple rule should be, if it is a) ''off-topic'', and b) ''offensive to someone'', it should be subject to editing or removal. We should ''never'', EVER be fighting to retain an off-topic comment that is offensive to someone. Not here. THAT goes against the purpose of the project. I think we can simplify this by saying, 'Off-topic contributions that are offensive or disruptive may be edited or removed.' Then we don't have to bicker about what constitutes humour, what constitutes off-colour humour, ''if it offends someone, it's offensive''. But only if it's off-topic. That's my opinion. ] 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I strongly disagree with the idea that, if one person finds something offensive, then it is. There are people who would find any talk about sex to be offensive, others who find any discussion of evolution offensive, etc. Therefore, we can't let one individual dictate what is and is not offensive, this should be decided by consensus. ] 13:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I strongly disagree with ''that''. The ref desk isn't about freedom of speech, it's about answering questions. And if off-topic contributions offend people, even ''one'' person, then it's detracting from the quality of the ref desk. People shouldn't have to be offended by off-topic comments on a helpdesk. Even on LOTS of public bulletin boards, like IMDB, Yahoo answers, etc, contributions are deleted if they are offensive. Why would you ''want'' to have off-topic contributions up on the ref desk that offend people? That's the fundamental thing I don't understand. Is your freedom of expression ''in this particular way'', ''on this particular board'', so important to you that you don't care if it turns other people off reading or contributing? Or makes people uncomfortable? ] 13:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::A Science answer about a fossil being 65 million years old may horribly offend a fundamentalist Christian who believes with all his heart that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. A discussion about the age of Mohammed's youngest wife, or the number of wives of Brigham Young, or the scientific truth of "clearing" may horribly offend Muslims, Mormons, or Scientologists. Discussion about the tenderest cuts of beef and how to cook them may offend vegans and Hindus. Discussion of the rights of Palestinians may offend Israelis. Discussions of 9/11 conspiracy theories or the problems of the Bush Iraq policies may offend supporters of the administration. What is offensive to one may be on-topic and encyclopedic to another. No one should get a veto because a question asked and answered from reliable sources offends them, if it is otherwise in compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. ] 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Were you responding to me? Because none of the examples you gave would fit under my personal suggestion/assertion. ] 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::There's a good answer to this issue IMO at ]. ] ] 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Im Westen Nichts Neues ==
	I dip into this page from time to time to see how matters stand. Well, it grows; my goodness how it grows.
	I was trying to think of the most appropriate way of illustrating how I feel about coming here, and I imagined myself as a young subaltern who has been reassigned from the front line trenches, where a great offensive is in progress, back towards general staff headquarters, a comfortable French chateau, several miles to the rear. The guns are now no more than a distant grumble. Inside, the senior officers are arguing over maps, tactics and points of strategy, that bear no relationship at all to what is happening some distance to the north. Much of the discussion here, safe behind the lines, seems to proceed in the same fashion, argument about argument, theory about theory and rules about rules. Meanwhile, the RD proceeds with the offensive, ignorant of the debate. The point is there are seem to be two quite separate worlds, which some manage to cross, and others hardly at all. Despite the alleged faults the RD ''works'', not in the same fashion as the desk at a library, which it can never do, for the simple reason that the talents and levels of competence of those who choose to participate vary too widely. It works rather like a Roman forum, where information is sought, given and exchanged; and it works in a reasonably effective manner. There is no need for more lists, and rules, and guides, and codes of conduct, which few, if any, will ever read. Quite frankly, I myself ignore some of the existing guidelines. I will always answer questions where I feel able, and I will never hit people over the head with 'do your own homework', which I am glad to see is appearing less and less as a response. Even the fullest answer I give will only ever be a sketch, a guide to greater research, which would not serve on its own as a completed assignment. I come back to a point I've made before: all that is really needed here is good sense, good faith and a reasonable level of knowledge, maturity and insight. Answer, where answer you can, and ignore the rest. I have no problems at all with debate and exchange which may arise from a question, where this is pertinent to the point under consideration. Dialectics, properly constructed, are, after all, the very basis of wisdom. I also have no problems with administrators removing offensive and impertinent remarks. I do not wish to be part of a 'gang' or a 'cabal', and I am also happy to see that this dimension, all too evident in the not so distant past, is also beginning to disappear. I have only one rule, the only one that is worth following, and the only one that I will ever obey: act always with sincerity.
	Well, what have I achieved by setting all of this down? Probably nothing at all, other than making this page even longer than it was when I set out on this brief journey. Well, on you go, guys; more rules about rules, pages about pages. World without end. Amen ] 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:While I generally agree with the above, I don't agree that "<s>common</s> good sense" is all that's needed, because "<s>common</s> good sense" can lead reasonable people in quite different, and contradictory, directions. After all, that "slaves are inferior and meant by God to serve their masters" was once "<s>common</s> good sense", at least to some. We do need to decide on what rules we should live by, to supplement "<s>common</s> good sense", but not replace it. ] 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Please have the goodness to read over again what I have written. I used the term 'good sense', a quite different and much rarer quality. Common sense is all too often common nonsense, something I would never commend. ] 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I changed my post accordingly, but my opinion remain the same, only the terminology has changed. ] 10:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::My own sentiments are basically with you on this one, Clio. I would prefer having no rules beyond ], ], and ], and I would prefer having no process enforcers patrolling the pages. But Misplaced Pages doesn't (and shouldn't) care about my preferences. The reality is that different understandings on what the RD should or could be exist in the community's multiple heads, and these differences have led to heated and not always rational discussions and actions in the recent past. Though I appreciated your trenches-vs-staff-HQ simile, I don't believe it's entirely accurate. Some of the anger and frustration has slopped over to the reference desk pages as well. I have now come to believe that the RD itself can benefit from a participatory rational discourse and a getting-to-yes approach regarding its purpose and rules (as much as I hate typing this).---] 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::AFAIK that slopping-over was an isolated incident. Anyway I think he's talking about whether some policy makers actually contribute to the RD. SCZenz has a couple hundred edits at the science desk. Friday has less than 20 but FWIW he said he's trying to get involved. The "ref desk regulars" of course by definition have hundreds (or thousands in LC and stu's cases) of edits on the RD. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think it was just one isolated incident, Froth. There was a sock puppet qualifying other editors' answers, there were several comments at various RD pages alluding to the whole discussion on deleting posts, blocking editors, and guideline ambiguity, and, lately, the atmosphere has become frosty at times. ---] 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Excellent. -] 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It used to be common sense that the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around it, (didnt it?)--] 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Clearly you have either not read or, more likely, you have not understood what I have written above. I ''did not use'' the expression 'common sense'. Do try to slow down and think a little more rationally. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the difference between 'common sense' and 'good sense' to those who are misguided enough to believe the terms to be interchangeable. I'm quite sure there are enough people here who understand the difference. ] 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Look at my indentation on that post. Do you know what indentation means?--] 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That's right: you keep your eye on the 'big picture'; after all, it's what you are ''good'' at. ] 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Also this isn't an argument of fact, "common" sense might work just fine as a policy, and in fact it does. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Another way ==
	Another way to deal with off-topic ramblings and chat and questions is to guide the questioners and respondents back on track. This invariably causes less grievance than removing material. Selective insertion of new headers can also make rambling threads more orderly. ] 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Good points. Would you be willing to write a section on "Dealing with off-topic conversations" ? I think your suggestions will easily gain consensus, and thus make an excellent addition to the proposed Ref Desk Policy Page. ] 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'll have to take part here for a few days before doing that. Thanks for the vote of confidence though! ] 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::OK, and you're welcome. ] 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:] comes into play here, and ]. -] 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Which way? Do you mean assume good faith with off-topic ramblings? Off-topic ramblings ''should'' start their own section, or subsection header. It is a common courtesy to the reader. If I come along later and add such section headers (making it clear that I added them), then that shouldn't be a problem. Only the most thin-skinned of people would think I was being incivil by helping in this way. And of course, being polite is a pre-resquisite. Not '''"get back on topic NOW you snivelling little twerps!!"''', but rather ''"hey, do you remember the original question, I wonder how this all relates to that, there are some interesting connections here..."'', and gently chivvying the topic back towards the centre (the question). The responses can certainly circle the question, but shouldn't go off at a tangent. That is disrespectful to the questioner, though it might be just as educational. ] 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I like the analogy of circles and tangents. Usually the postings do come back to the original Q, but the circle may have a rather larger diameter than required. In the early posts, therfore, it may appear as if we are going off on a tangent!--] 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Mmm good point. Remember that those seemingly off topic responses often spark valuable discussions that would have never occured otherwise. The OPs thank us for those. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::(ec) There's nothing wrong with providing more information than was asked for. We're not forcing it down their throats. I think it's actually a good thing. -] 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== May we edit the posts of others ? ==
	My instinctive answer is no, but with some exceptions (basically that some additions are OK, as long as you don't change the meaning):
	*I feel it's good to edit a poor title, like "Question". I like to change it to "Question (about the combustion temperature of ants)" so they can still find it if searching for the word "Question". Also note a technical limitation, that having two sections with identical titles causes a problem. Specifically, links "get confused" in this situation, and always go to the first section. So, I frequently change two "Car question" titles to "Car question (engine)" and "Car question (transmission)", or, if they can't easily be distinguished, just "Car question" and "Car question 2". ] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Adding links. I frequently change plain text in the question to links, either to help other readers understand the question or to help the original poster find an answer (I then tell them to click on the link for the answer). This allows me to keep the question and answer more compact than if I have to repeat all the words, as links, in my answer. ] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Reformatting the question. Leading spaces are frequently in the question, which makes the text scroll off the right edge of the screen. I fix this, when I see it. ] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	What does everyone else think ? ] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I've just learnt what causes that annoying thing when the text scrolls off the right-hand side of the page! I'm very happy now. And I've just corrected a question on the Science RD where that had happened! :-) Title changes are good, but leave it recognisable enough so the questioner can find it again. Adding links - a matter of style. If you do it that way, fine. Others almost certainly just type it out again. The minimal space/time saving is not worth codifying this as a rule. ] 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not suggesting we make a rule that it '''must''' be done that way, only that it '''can''' be done that way. However, if the consensus is against this, then I'd be fine with retyping it all. What I don't want, however, is to do something, assuming it's OK, only to be told it's forbidden. Therefore, I'd like a clear rule on this. ] 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've done these things, too, even changed an incorrect spelling here and there to get a link to work. A librarian would correct the spelling on the dirty little scrap of paper with a misspelled "questin" on it for you. The formatting is a necessary evil. We also use the unsigned tag. My view is that formatting is okay. I don't reword the sentence. I have added or adjusted the heading. -] 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The standard etiquette on Misplaced Pages talk pages is that editing heading names is fine, and redoing things like spacing and indentation is fine, and even moving comments around is ok as long as it's an effort to preserve (or make clearer) the order of the discussion. Adding links to peoples' comments or correcting their spelling is generally quite frowned upon. One particular note in the context of the ref desk: I think it's very confusing to everyone when people reply to a question by wikilinking the original question&mdash;first because it doesn't draw the attention of the questioner to the links in the same way retyping them would, and second because it misleads other question-answerers into thinking that the user had already looked at the Misplaced Pages article when they asked. -- ] 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::That's an excellent point, SCZenz. From now on I am not going to wikilink in the original question. -] 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes good point. I try not to edit their question in any way except to correct those leading spaces which make the code box appear, and I also use <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki>. If there are applicable wiki links I put them in my own post --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I would have preferred to be able to continue to wikilink in the original post, but I will respect the consensus and retype the links instead. ] 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I too, used to link in the OP, but I can see it is not ideal for the reasins given above. Therefore I will retype any links instead.8-)--] 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Basic question for consensus==
	This statement is from ]: Bopp & Smith defines Reference interview as the
	:"Conversation between a member of the library reference staff and a library user for the purpose of clarifying the user’s needs and aiding the user in meeting those needs" .
	Can everyone comfortably agree
	#with this definition of reference interview and that
	#the Reference Desk is, by definition, the place where this activity occurs?
	-] 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	-----
	god this page has gotten '''really''' long in the last few days.
	i have no clue as to what the definition to a reference interview is, but i agree that this is in fact, where the definition you presented takes place. which means '''support''' =p
	]] 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This page just started 3 days ago; look at the archives! O_O --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, THB, I agree with that. ] 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	I agree -- it must stop. There is to be no further discussion at the Reference Desk talk section page. Typing anything additional will only aggrevate the problem. The problem must not be aggravated further. Further aggrevation must stop now. Now is the tyme for the stoppage of the aggravation. Do not aggro. ] ] 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:What? o_o --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmm THB, since we have a page on this very subject, I suppose it would be quite contrary of us not to start from these premises--] 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The idea of a ] looks good. You'll note that everything in the conversation is geared toward figuring out which sources of information are the correct ones to refer the library patron to. -- ] 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually, last time I looked (admittedly a few months ago) people tend to ask quetsions and then never be heard from again (unless they are very polite). So the idea of an interview is less useful than it appears. It seems to be rather that people ask questions, and a flurry of discussion and answers results among RD regulars, and then the question is archived. The original questioner taking part or responding (even if just to say thanks), isn't all that common, at least that is what I thought. ] 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, sometimes it's just a question and answer. A good bit of the time there is some give and take. But do agree about that being the purpose? Given, it doesn't always work out that way. -]
	::::These days I mostly contribute to the computing desk and other than trivial questions it often turns into a back-and-forth with the OP. But it definately doesn't work that way at RD/M or RD/S --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I can easily agree on seeing it as the RD's main purpose. But the RD has much more to offer. For instance, I love the mathematics page, where a bunch of excellent editors go out of their way to offer tremendous and valuable help with mathematical problems of every kind, in a way you'd never find in any library. The language desk offers translations of words and short text segments, interpretations of phonetically rendered phrases, deciphering of scripts, lessons in grammar and stylistics and much much more. The humanities desk helps you find the creator and title of a work of art based on an image, the title of a book or film, based on a vague description. All wiki-linked and referenced, of course. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, I could link every single one of them to the archives if you insist, and the list goes on and on. WP's RD has the unique opportunity to be more. ---] 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree with you, Sluzzelin, and believe that the definition is broad enough to encompass all these things in more, and that's why I was hoping for consensus on this particular definition of the RD's purpose. The need is defined by the user (with the assistance of the "staff" if necessary and possible.) The purpose of this whole project (Misplaced Pages) is to make information and knowledge available. -] 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You're absolutely right, it can and it should, with this enormous potential here in terms of sheer bulk and scope of free staff resources, 24/7. ---] 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe everyone is assuming this and just not stating it explicitly, but I think it's worth emphasizing that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to deal in ''all'' knowledge or information, but rather that which is ] through ]. ] ] 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes Friday, I agree with you 100% on this. But I would call them reliable sources, not proper sources. ] 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Starting from scratch makes things difficult ==
	I think a large part of the difficulty is that we seem to be starting from ''scratch'', not from a shared understanding of Misplaced Pages practices. So I ask those unfamiliar with policy to please keep a few things in mind:
	#Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy- we don't have firm rules. We find that we rarely need them.
	#Policy is a ''description'' of what gets done, not a set of rules about what ''must'' be done.
	#Use common sense.
	#Misplaced Pages has a set of cultural expectations, not all of which are even written down.
	#We don't need to re-invent the wheel. We need to start from standard Misplaced Pages practice, and build from there.
	In short, if someone tells you that something you're suggesting is contrary to accepted Misplaced Pages practice, ''please consider taking them at their word''. If you want to change how Misplaced Pages generally operates, that's probably going to be off-topic for this page. I would like to see us all try very hard to keep the discussion here on-topic. (And yes, I've been guilty of getting off-topic too.) Anyone who sees this happening is welcome to try to nudge things back on topic. Thank you for your consideration. ] ] 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Where are the original discussions about initially setting up reference desks? It would be useful if the present parties discussing this issue had access to them.--] 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::As is standard practice in many places, the archives are listed at the top of the page. I took a quick glance through the first few, and didn't notice much in the way of discussion about the purpose- it's almost like the folks in those days ''automatically knew'' what it was for. ] ] 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The very top of archive 1 has something interesting:
	::New policy of ''If you know an answer, give only a very limited answer on this page. Just post a link to the Misplaced Pages article that contains the answer (although you might have to supply a few missing details, relevant to the specific question, here on this page)'' decided on by ] and ]
	:It sounds to me like these folks understood well that the point of the project is ''the encyclopedia''. ] ] 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes it appears to have just appeared like a white hole from nowhere! No discussions on purpose, protocol or rules. Maybe no one thought it would be that popular then! 8-)--] 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I would suggest that we can learn something from this. People were using common sense, and an understanding of the goals of the project. We could use a truckload or two of that right now. ] ] 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::We still dont know the goals of the original RD inventors/editors.--] 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well the original idea and talk probably originated on someones talk page or village pump or some other talk page. There may have been quite a lot of prior discussion (just like we're doing here) --] 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hmm looks like ] (LMS) was involved in the early days. Thet name sounds familiar to me! 8-)--] 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Heres what he wrote when he left WP:
	<blockquote>
	P.S. Here's what I posted when I left in 2002. Still good advice:
	All the best to Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. May you continue
	* to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
	* to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
	* to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
	* to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
	* to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Misplaced Pages with respect and good will,
	* to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
	* to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.
	</blockquote>
	--] 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::We're not in some science fiction story, stranded in a space station for generations and trying to rediscover the purposes of various machines and things (Heinlein, Orphans of the Sky; among others), policy is what we make it to be today. The early RD regulars didn't have some secret knowledge of managing the RD, and I doubt if their policies then could cope with the massive amount of traffic we recieve now. This is a nice retrospective but it's not really valuable to the policy making. By the way, exhaustive debate has proven valuable to wp policymaking, not sure what larry was thinking rhere --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	There absolutely has been disagreement on the basic purpose of the reference desk. Gaining consensus on the purpose of the reference desk is like an organization having a mission statement. Everything else must support the purpose or it should be eliminated. -] 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	== A Really good answer to a lot of questions that have been asked around here... ==
	Is in this link:
	I suggest you go there. and then fight on that talk page(which doesn't exist)
	:That was actually referred to above under the heading "Lollipop Guild". If you read the page, a lot of it is very offensive and condescending. -] 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::? i found none of it to be offensive, and very little to be condescending. where is this violent and condescending material u speak of?]] 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No thanks, we prefer to fight here. It's closer to our homes. Thanks anyway. --] 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Deleted question==
	Friday, you just deleted a question about Playmates while I was answering it. I strongly believe that question should not have been deleted. I'm a little disappointed, too. -] 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:this (in case of not knowing what 'this' refers to, look at the paragraph above my post) is a prime example of something that should be put on friday's talk page, not the discusion thread. ]]
	== possible trolling removed and restored ==
	I what looked to me like a non-serious question. It was posted by Kjvenus, who from the looks of ] has done this before. I left a note asking the Kjvenus to cut that out. THB put it back and attempted to answer it. Do people think my assumption that this was repeated trolling was incorrect? Which is better for the project, ignoring trolls or playing along? ] ] 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:] trumps ] if there is any doubt. -] 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There is ''always'' doubt, is there not? I'd go with "reasonable doubt" here. You disagree this is someone playing games, then? ] ] 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I believe that there is a lack of knowledge on the part of the person who posted the question and that he might learn something by reading the articles I linked to which addressed at least some of his questions. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Certainly he gets less encouragement to be a troll from a straightforward answer than from deleting his question and leaving notes on his talk page, thereby confirming that you're aggravated by his actions. Answering his question is no different from answering any other. -] 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::From ]:
	::::When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user. Remember and apply the principles laid out at Misplaced Pages:Don't bite the newcomers.
	::::-] 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, I'm sure we all understand all that. This is a little bit like finding a newly created article that gets speedied- we look at the author's other contributions to decide what kind of message, if any, to leave them. If you did not look at his talk page and contributions before deciding how to proceed here, I recommend making this a habit in the future. ] ] 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:have you clicked the link in my topic? assume good faith. that razor thing-"assume stupidity over malice" ]] 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:(ec) Well, talk page warnings are for the chance that they're ''not'' trolling and just need to be informed that their behavior isn't appropriate. They're also so others can see that there's been questionable behavior there before. In cases like this, I think it's useful to look at the other contributions from the editor who posts a questionable question. Whether it's trolling or cluelessness, IMO it's better to not answer the question if we're also warning the user not to post that kind of question. What impression does it give if one editor asks them to cut it out and another plays along? ] ] 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Friday, I don't consider myself "playing along". You have an adolescent male posting a question about playmates. He's not blanking out pages or writing "so & so's a fag" or "nigger nigger nigger" all over the place. He posted a question. An adolescent, misinformed, silly question, but a question. One that can at least be partially answered, and even by referring to Misplaced Pages articles. -] 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Are you going to follow up with this editor then? Explain your revert, add his page to your watch list, etc? ] ] 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::No, why would I want to, or think it necessary to, watch this particular editor? I would have just answered his question and moved on had it not been deleted while I was composing the answer. You should be the one wanting do that since you think he's a troll. He's already been warned several times, why don't you block him for a week? I do watch and warn and ask an administrator to intervene when someone is vandalizing or trying to disrupt, or is acting with bad intent, as in the example I gave below of something that should be deleted. -]
	:::If the questioner is of high school or older age and of normal intellectual capacity, then the question seems pretty clearly to be trolling. Just my impression. It would be instructive to see if the questioner's other questions are similarly "naive." ] 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. It's also fairly irresponsible to not take the other contribution into account. He had previous questions removed as racist trolling. This is why we check talk pages and contributions. ] ] 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::3 posts to confirm a troll!--] 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	yes this seems like a troll to me. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Ah but have you had 3 posts yet?--] 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:If you look at all of the contributions from that user, you'll see he may be ignorant, and he may not be someone you want to be friends with, but he is sincere in his remarks. Everyone here knows a troll when they see one, this one's not a troll. is the kind of stuff that should be deleted on sight. Mr. Playmate might actually click on the links and learn something. -] 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It takes 3 posts to conform a troll 8-)--] 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Goals of WP ==
	THe fundamental question we must ask ourselves is:
	'''Can the goals of WP be achieved without reference desks?'''
	If not, why not. The answer to the latter question will define their porpose!--] 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The real question, IMO, is "Should something that seeks to be formal entity (encyclopedia) have such an informal public side to it". That is the problem that people like SCZenz see, I think. It is a good question but as long as the RD in formatted as an open community rather than a fully moderated interface then I guess the answer is. "Sure why not, who say we have to be 'all formal, all the time'". --] 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	:OK now we have two questions-- I was hoping to avoid multiplication at this stage 8-)--] 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::May I just remind people of my suggestion for a formal interface with the public: A '''General desk''' that could lead to the more informal specialist desks.--] 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	Since the RD does a great job of advancing the mission of WP, the answer is "Yes of course but not quite as well" --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed. If the RD did not ''help'' with the goals of Misplaced Pages, it would already have been removed. Let's all do our parts to make it as helpful to the goals of Misplaced Pages as we can. (And just to be clear- the goal is to produce a high quality encyclopedia using information ] from ]. ) ] ] 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==RLRDL==
	Here is an informative summary of the duties and qualifications of a real life reference desk librarian: ] ] 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:That's the Misplaced Pages article. -] 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yep. And, egads! I just noticed they ''completely'' failed to mention making juvenile sex jokes as part of the duties. Bizarre. ] ] 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Did it also fail to mention megomaniacal admins viciously censoring everything they say? See, I too can make inappropriate comments by blowing things out of proportion --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes. Friday, we've already reached consensus that sex jokes are no longer allowed. ] 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::No sorry we havent! What about other types of offensive (to some) jokes?--] 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I can also blow things out of proportion -- but lets not get side tracked! 8-)--] 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It's time to move forward. -] 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== With a bow to Theavatar3 ==
	]: You leave them alone to go into the pasture chat room and argue incessently about the best way to care for cows, are cows harmful, whether you should even own a cow. You continue. The cows are left to manage for themselves. They do just fine. --] 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:What a load of bull! Why dont you just eat grass?--] 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Just chew on it. Stop trying to milk a joke out of every comment. --] 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::If I dont, ]s may do so!--] 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Can we please mooooooove on ? :-) ] 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Light current's just trying to ] in on Justanother's story. -] 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Let me give you'all a ] - this cheesy behavior has got to stop. --] 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::You guys are just a bunch of ]-ups. -] 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	No, just an editor with a ] in this discussion. --] 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Hmm I shall have to ] on the above comments. 8-)--] 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::No whey, I can't stomach this discussion any further. :-) ] 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::This whole section of the page is ] and should be deleted. -] 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I, for one, have had enough of beefs. --] 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I have to say that all of the above is an extremely ] form of humor. It just shows what a load of ]s you all are.--] 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, well, I just hope no-one plans to put us out to pasture (]?). --] 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::They just may if this topic doesn't ]inate into something useful --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Just what ] of humor is this?] 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I believe that would be ] humor. (weak I know, but how do you follow Kine?!) --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== We have a policy page ! ==
	I've copied the items which seem to have consensus so far into a policy page: ].
	*As we reach consensus on additional items, they can be added.
	*I put a clone of the policy template (]) there, with one change, this is an "unofficial policy", not official. However, it's really ugly (just block text). Can someone please prettify it ?
	] 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Good job, StuRat. Your efforts are appreciated!!! --] 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. ] 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I've moved it to ] so it's in the Misplaced Pages namespace rather than article space (and updated StuRat's link, above). -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::OK, thanks. ] 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Take a look at a similiar issue, discussed on another page ==
	I think many of us agree that the RD has more in common with a talk page than with an article. I know I do. Take a look at ] where there's a discussion of dealing with off-topic material. ] ] 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Sexual humor ==
	I had thought there was a consensus to disallow all sexual humor at the Ref Desk, so including that in the new policy page. However, ] disagreed that there was a consensus, and removed that statement from the page. Therefore, we need to determine what the consensus is. ] 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Do we allow sexual humor ?
	*'''Support''' - I personally think it's OK, in certain cases. ] 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Don't Know''' Although I actually supported it in mild forms at one point, as I noted above, we don't know where the joke is actually directed. The questioner could be eleven years old. Even if I'm answering a question from, say, Mr. Rat, who's an adult, eleven year olds will be reading it. We don't actually *know* for a fact what the case is.
	:It might even be seen to violate some basic policies. Certainly it bothers even some editors, as we've seen. I'm leaning toward opposing it but waiting for the ] to give me guidance. -] 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I register the strongest possible objection to sexism in the false guise of humour. ] 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::What? Are you saying that sexism is a good thing? Or are you missing a negative in there somewhere? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Before attempting legislation against sexual humor, can one actually objectively define that? Because if one can't, this will likely lead to lots of debate whenever a borderline case pops up. For instance, would it be sexual humor to say that "women can't read maps, but men can't ask for directions" (which, incidentally, is the title of a book")? (]) 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	]
	:Still thinking that there are other forms of equally offensive humor and about ]. Not sure we should single it out in particular. There's more offensive stuff. And are we talking about sexist or sexual humor? There's some overlap, I know.... I'm thinking the RD is not the place for "offensive humor" and then leave it to "good" judgement. The community obviously has had no problem making it known what it considers offensive. Maybe it would be better to reach a consensus on what is substantially offensive. -] 09:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And what exactly is in that picture? Baked beans on scrambled eggs on toast? It looks disgusting. -] 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I would just like to make it clear to everybody that I appreciate humour and wit, even some forms of sexual humour, as much as anyone else. I am far from being a prig. But what I cannot abide is offensive and distasteful remarks that try to escape criticism by using 'it was only a joke' as a smokescreen or a rearguard response. There was an example of this not so long ago, of which, I feel sure, people will be mindful. ] 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	'''Clarification''' - I was asking solely about sexual humor, meaning jokes about genitals and sexual acts. While sexist humor standards might also be worthy of discussion here, that was not my intent in this section. ] 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Hey, Mr. Rat, good morning. If the jokes were about vaginas would they be any more or less acceptable than jokes about penises? Serious question here. -] 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::They are both about genitals, so should either both be acceptable or unacceptable, depending on what we decide here. ] 12:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::*And assuming it is decided to be unacceptable, how would you propose to deal with people who post such jokes anyway? Warning? Removal? Block? (]) 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That's a separate issue. Likely if a consensus were reached about what's acceptable, it would be almost irrelevant. -] 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, we've already reached consensus for the guidelines for deletion, and those would apply here: . The only exception to those guidelines would be for "disruption", and this certainly wouldn't qualify for that. ] 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Given that that proposal was written today, how do you mean it has "reached consensus"? (]) 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::It was discussed here: and that is where the consensus was reached. I also proposed these rules some time ago (in the archives), but we did not get around to deciding on them until recently. ] 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The page on systemic bias points out that the majority of wikipedians are male, and thus would probably be more comforatable with comments about penises, or any sexual comment for that matter (at least, that's what I see in American university; not a very good perspective I know). Just a little off-topic there, we shouldn't treat it any differently of course --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*That appears to be an ongoing discussion with several dissenting opinions, e.g. Sczenz, Ten and Friday. (]) 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*I count 11 opinions that fully or conditionally support, and none that say "oppose". I suspect, by their comments, that the Admins disagree, but they aren't actually participating in the attempt to build consensus, and I'm not paying much attention to those who oppose consensus building. ] 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:**That's because you're doing a vote count, whereas I'm looking at what the discussion says (which includes the few sections below the vote). Consensus is not a vote, and guidelines are not enacted through majority vote. (]) 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't see how this is applicable- a lot of the meaningful discussion is supportive, so it's the same thing right? It still doesn't make for consensus of course but it must be good for something --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I don't know how many times it's been pointed out that this isn't how we do things. However the culture of the reference desk has somehow drifted far out of synch with the rest of the project. Some of us, experienced with how Misplaced Pages does things, see no reason for this and want to bring it back. ] ] 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I don't see any consensus forming on this issue, so suggest we leave it open for now. I'd like to go on to building consensus on other issues. ] 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==THB rants==
	:Friday, it would be nice if you & SCZenz and StuRat & Lightcurrent could get together and decide how the latter two can contribute in a way that doesn't offend the former two so much that editors and their comments get "rubbed out". Frankly, you & SCZenz are a bit overzealous in deleting and blocking and StuRat & Light current (and some of the rest of us) kid around a bit much at times. Everybody wants the Reference Desk to work well. All of this has pretty much been established by all of the crap flyin' around and I think there would be true consensus on that if everybody could just shake hands. And you personally could try to be a little flexible on this stuff in the meantime, like not deleting things on sight unless they are truly *disruptive*. This whole hullaballoo is disruptive. Even Clio and Loomis are at each others' throats now. I'll just shut up and go away now, thanks. -] 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And Friday, "some of us" blah blah blah is polarizing. Please stop polarizing. It's destructive. -] 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm being flexible, believe it or not. There's all kinds of stuff that I think is just questioners playing games, but I let it slide. I'll make more of an effort to only remove ''obvious'' crap. ] ] 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not trying to be divisive. Check the but about about "starting from scratch"- it's clear that many of the problems here are due to a culture clash between those who understand who we do things at Misplaced Pages and those who don't. I'm sorry if this statement is divisive, but it's ''true'' and I think realizing this is essential to understanding the situation here. Do you disagree? ] ]
	:::"That's not the way we do things here" definitely comes across as the worst type of bureaucratic nonsense. "We've always done it that way, so change is impossible", in other words. And, of course, the Ref Desk has always done things it's way, if you want to use the same illogical argument in reverse. ] 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::StuRat what I said to him applies to all of us. Let's stop trying to argue and be right and start getting along well enough to agree on somethings. -] 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:(Okay, so I didn't really go away.) **Forget the culture clash.*** Just forget about it. You and SCZenz *talk* to StuRat and Light current and work things out. Please. You don't even realize that you're coming across as condescending because everybody's backed into corners now. Get out of the corners. Stop being so tenacious. Talk. Find some things to agree about. Of course no one wants or intends this situation. So fix it. Say something nice to Light current, give him a compliment. Clear the air. Surely you've learned something from Light current that you can acknowledge, & vice versa. -] 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Amen. THB just made the comment that I was about to make. In particular, I'm concerned about the way that StuRat and Friday have been at each other. Let the other guy have the last word now and then. Don't be concerned about scoring points. I'm finding that I don't want to agree with ''anyone'' on this page, just because so many people are being so darned ''disagreeable''. (And yes, I realize that for that remark I should probably add myself to that 'disagreeable people' category.)
	::I think everyone participating here ''wants'' to improve Ref Desk and Misplaced Pages. I think it would help a lot if people stopped trying to shoehorn everyone else (in their minds, or on this page) into one of two camps. I think that it would be really nice if it were acknowledged that Friday and SCZenz really aren't jackbooted, fascist, black-marker-wielding censors bent on sucking all the fun out of Misplaced Pages; it would also be good if we could acknowledge that StuRat and Light current aren't hippie libertarians obsessed with their 'right' to make penis jokes.
	::Assume some good faith. Stop trying to score points. Quit being dicks. Take a breather. I'm sick of the debate and the endless bickering. My blood pressure doesn't need this. I'm going to try to help out at the Ref Desk, and I'm going to remove inappropriate remarks, and I'm going to ignore this really annoying fight from now on. Someone drop me a line if the pissing contest gets resolved; I've got an encyclopedia to build. ](]) 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually it might be better if deleting and joking and blocking and penises were all on hold until the blood coagulates. -] 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	===Willingness to compromise===
	What I am willing to compromise on is basically anything where the consensus goes against what I would like to do. So far, that has been not adding links or doing spell fixes on other people's questions, and not adding jokes before there is at least one serious response. Things I'm not willing to compromise on are the total rejection of the process of consensus, with the assertion that anyone can unilaterally decide what the rules are for deletion, based on their own interpretations of general Misplaced Pages policy (which says pretty much whatever you want it to say). Now, let me ask ] and ], what are you willing to compromise on ? ] 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:For my part, I'm going to remove only ''blatantly'' inappropriate questions. See where I did this. I assume that particular removal was uncontroversial, since it stuck. I'm also trying very hard to rant a hell of a lot less. :) ] ] 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::That was excellent judgement. Frogs don't have toenails, anyway. -] 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It seems like this whole epic campaign should stop after those two comments from stu and friday.. that's it after all, isn't it? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== homework ==
	okay, so this is probably not the first time this has come up, but I'll give it a go. Is there any way we can stress that people should DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK? Also, what is the generally accepted policy on answering obvious homework questions? I usually give a general answer and then a link to a page where they should start to research. I think the problem might be that people are not sure exactly where to start. Any thoughts? -<FONT FACE="Calibri">]]]<sup>]</sup></FONT> 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:okay, i just did more research into the topic and I found the template <nowiki>{{dyoh}}</nowiki>. Still, what is the best way to answer these questions? <FONT FACE="Calibri">]]]<sup>]</sup></FONT> 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::(ec)What you're doing seems to be the way most people are handling it lately. It's the safest way--I once told a 60+ year old woman to do her own homework--and it's nicer than using the template. Probably they wouldn't ask if they already knew what to do. It doesn't hurt to point them in the right direction. You can also tell them to come back when they have more specific questions arising from the research. -] 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I tell them how to do their homework, but don't actually do it. Here's an example: . ] 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes that's exactly what I try to do --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== How is the ref desk any different than the help desk or village pump pages ==
	A question I'd like some of the ref desk regulars to ponder - why is the observed behavior at the RD different than at the ] or ] pages?
	Bonus question: how is it that the HD and VP pages function relatively more smoothly without a strict set of rules?
	Count me as '''opposed''' to the RD needing its own "acceptable behavior" guidelines. If there are going to be guidelines, they should apply to all the similar sorts of pages which means the consensus has to be much broader. ] is a fine start, but at this point it should be considered as a proposal (with the backing of some regular RD contributors). The RD does not exist in isolation from the rest of the project. I believe this is the underlying point several folks have been trying to make. -- ] <small>(])</small> 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I concur. (]) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually most of the problems seem to be on the Misc. Desk. I'm not hearing a lot of screaming about the Science, Math or Computing Desks.
	:Right now the policy thing is just being used to try to get people on the same wavelength. It probably won't ever be a policy, but you can't expect people to just know things unless you tell them or they can read it. The instructions at the top of the RD page aren't sufficient. It's a discussion with some agreed-upon conclusions. People are starting to get worked up over the format but some structure is needed here right now. Think of it as pegs to hang some ideas on. -] 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:*However, note that at least one user here claims it already is policy. Recently, this discussion page has relied far too much on voting on motions, and far too little on actual discussions. Misplaced Pages is neither a democracy nor a legal system, and you cannot expect a "motion" to do something or to make something a rule to actually work. (]) 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::*Not enough discussion ? You've got to be kidding. We have pages and pages of discussions; here, in the archives, on various user's talk pages, on ], as well as some (improperly placed) discussions directly on the Ref Desk. We have talked this issue to death, it is now time to come up with a consensus and document that consensus. And, some of us find Admins' requests to talk indefinitely but never actually decide anything to be an insincere way to preserve the status quo, that being "only Admins know what's best, so they get to do as they please". ] 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::StuRat, now you're polarizing and of course you're right there's been too much discussion going around in circles and it's time to move forward. Friday has taken off his Administrator Beanie for a bit and put on his Editor Beanie and apologized. Take off the boxing gloves please, so you can shake his hand. You offered some compromises but maybe Friday didn't see that section up there yet. Be patient. And maybe you didn't see the apology down there. -] 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I saw his apology, but he does have a history of first apologizing, then doing something even more disruptive. His last apology (on my talk page), was followed by the sockpuppet incident. I will wait to see if his actions match his words. ] 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::StuRat, I'll take your word for that. But he has offered an apology that rings sincere. If what you say happened in the past happens again it won't be any surprise to you. The least you can do is give it a chance and accept his apology. That has more to do with you than with him. And then you've already said that you've compromised and changed your behaviour, maybe you could offer to him that maybe something you've done needs apologizing for, I'm sure there's something you could think of. -] 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::StuRat, you're going to have to ]. That's one of the basics. -] 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::That's a coincidence, I was just thinking that myself, and I apologize for not always assuming good faith. I tend to do so when I first meet someone, but after seeing a certain amount of bad behavior on their part I lose that ability. I'll try to work on that, but it will be difficult for me. ] 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Okay, StuRat, you've had plenty of time now. Don't think about it, just do it. Please. Surely you can't imagine it was easy for Friday? It's your turn. -] 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't understand, I just did apologize, right above your post. ] 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'm sorry I wasn't clear, Friday has apologized below and is standing there with his hand extended waiting for you to accept it. -] 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::OK, I didn't realize the location of the apology mattered. ] 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Somehow I think that might have been easier for Friday!-] 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Yes, he apologizes quite frequently. ] 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::*Trust me, I'm not one of those who wants to talk indefinitely. I'm not saying there was not enough discussion, I'm saying that a compromise would probably be better. The problem with your refdesk/policy page against comment removal is that it's pretty complex and you can't really enforce people doing it that way. (]) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Radiant, of course you're right about the complexity, but StuRat and Friday need to be on speaking terms before that can be discussed. Things have been made more complex, let's cool things down and things will simplify. That discussion can wait a little while. -] 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I don't want to start a conversation on this topic, but if I had almost been blocked for a week I would want some agreement on some rules so I would know how to avoid that. That may be the impetus. Try to look behind the actions. -] 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I'm not blaming him, but such impetus tends to create overreactions. Complex rules don't really work on Misplaced Pages, because the fallacy of any rule is in the assumption that people will actually read it. (]) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:And then there's the ] if you start forbidding things.-] 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Agree w/ Rick Block that specific policy or guidelines for the desk are probably a bad idea, but did like the idea of ]. We could probably do w/ a bit more emphasis on how the desk can be used to improve the encyclopedia, a page that lists a few things for editors to keep in mind while answering might help out some.] 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, in any organization a ] of purpose is important to keep things moving in the right direction. Maybe you could put some of your ideas on that talk page. Sometime this weekend, when everyone can discuss instead of argue, this conversation can move over there to firm up the statement of purpose. -] 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Apologies ==
	Everyone, please accept my apologies for my excessively fervent ranting and whatnot. None of us should be here to fight, and I see that a lot of what I've done has ''fanned the flames'' rather than cooling things down. ] ] 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for my contributions to the confusion. -] 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for not always assuming good faith, where you, and some other Admins, are concerned. ] 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Flame fanning is your job, and you fuelled pages of discussion. But I'm glad you feel the way you do --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	This is a really big change from a few hours ago. -] 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	==WP:NPA vios==
	On the Humanities desk in response to the question "History" regarding slavery, Loomis 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC) launched personal attacks on Clio the Muse 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) who replied in kind. As an uninvolved party, I first posted there a request that each delete his/her own remarks which were personal attacks, then remembering the statement here that metacomments do not belong on Ref Desk, I posted the request in each user's discussion, rather than posting a formal warning. Each has made good contributions to the Ref Desk, and the personal attacks do great harm to the quality of the Ref Desk project. If they leave the comments up, then deletion by others and warnings may be called for. Plus I am pissed now because Misplaced Pages ate a long co
	mment I tried to post here, saying it "Could not find an internet cache" or some such gobbledegook. ] 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	*I '''support''' your effort to remove the personal attacks and move them onto each other's user pages. Incidentally, I have a tip on how to avoid having your text eaten by Misplaced Pages. Before I hit the "Save page" button, I always highlight my text and do a cut (CONTROL-X) and paste (CONTROL-V), that way I know it's in the clipboard buffer. Then, if the Wiki Gods are angry and destroy my post, I can just paste it back in and try again. ] 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You don't have to do two steps, you can just 'CTRL+C', which copies. ] 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, but I'm a skeptic, and I don't actually believe it's in the buffer until I see some proof. A cut and paste let's me "see it with my own eyes". ] 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh, and also, usually the 'back' button will just take you back to your editing screen. ] 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::True, often, but not always. ] 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Firefox's "fast history" cache makes it possible, but you may have exceeded your cache size, or you may have visited other pages before hitting back in your original tab --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Realizing I have hit "save page" without saving first to the clipboard now causes the same visceral jolt as giving the cardoor a slam after hitting the lock button and realizing the keys MIGHT still be in the car, with me outside. Misplaced Pages seems to have gotten way worse in the last 2 weeks at eating posts for inexplicable reasons (i.e. not an edit conflict.) Edison's Rule #2 states "The likelihood of Misplaced Pages eating a post varies directly with the time it would take to repeat the research and the number of web pages which must be accessed to get names, dates, citations etc into the post.] 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I know exactly what you mean when I lock my room door and hear that slam without patting my pockets a few seconds before :) --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== My Recent Remarks: An Explanation and Apology ==
	I've received two valid criticisms from both THB and Edison concerning my recent conduct on the RefDesk. I reproduce here my response to both of them, as I feel you all deserve to understand the motivation behind my admittedly inappropriate behaviour:
	Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Misplaced Pages generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.
	People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as being authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Misplaced Pages in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Misplaced Pages are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.
	Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum.
	Thanks for your comments, they were well received.
	] 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Since you had both read them, I took the liberty of hiding the comments (not deleting them) until the two of you can delete them yourselves. They were embarrassing for users of the RD to see. -] 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Loomis, do you have any examples of responses that are inaccurate? I'm asking because Clio and I don't cross paths very often, and I'd like to gain an understanding of what you're talking about. ] 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	While Clio (a relative newbie) does seem to have a lot to contribute, I have to agree that she doesn't seem to know how to disagree with somebody and yet remain civil. At the first sign of a disagreement over some statement of fact, she attacks the competence of the other party, usually couched in vague language ("certain clueless individuals..."), rather than providing evidence for her side or just "agreeing to disagree". I hope that she can learn to treat people more respectfully and avoid the personal attacks. I was recently the victim of just such an attack, but managed to take my complaint to her talk page rather than put it directly on the Ref Desk: . She refused to remove her comment, but I didn't think it was serious enough to bring up here, so I just let the issue drop. Perhaps if a few people she hasn't yet clashed with could suggest a change in her manner of discourse, that might help. Only do so if you have a thick skin, though, as anyone putting a hand on her shoulder to gently guide her in the right direction may pull back a bloody stub. ] 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	(edit conflict) Worse than the original Loomis. You should back up such accusations w/ diffs, or retract them.] 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Inappropriate remarks, no matter how elegantly couched, remain inappropriate remarks. If that shoe fits anyone, they may feel free to slip it on. ] --] 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:StuRat, perhaps you and Clio haven't gotten along but the disagreement between Clio and Loomis should probably be resolved between them. I'm sure no one would object if Loomis just removed this entire section. -] 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, I do think some action should be taken to ask Clio to be more respectful of others. And that is related to Loomis's complaint about her, above. ] 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You are correct and too many people have commented now to withdraw it anyway. -] 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Well, first of all, I can't really say that I am surprised that Sturat has weighed in on this in the fashion he has. In a previous discussion, when he made several ill-informed statements about the history and nature of Catholicism, I pointed these out in as objective and as detached a fashion as I could, at a time when I was still very new to Misplaced Pages. His response was, if I remember rightly, to dismiss 'such a person.' As for Loomis, I urge anyone puzzled by the above to read his gushing past comments on my talk page. Please also read the recent exchange on the Humanities RD concerning the Law of Tort and Queen Elizabeth II. I responded point by point to his intellectually ill-organised assault, some of the wording quite offensive in its general emphasis. I am now accused in the above of creating deliberate fictions, and all for pointing out that that it was important to understand aspects of the past in their own terms. I have to say that at first I took Loomis as an amusing eccentric. In reality he gives all of the appearance of being a bully, who descends into verbal tantrums if he does not get his own way. Now, I am the ''last person'' to give way to this. More than this, verbal bullying, which I have tackled all my life, only increases my determination. I thought Misplaced Pages had a policy of no personal attacks. If the above is not a personal attack I do not know what is. I have been involved on the RD for the last eight weeks or so, as long as I have been contributing to this project. My answers have always attempted to be empirically exact, and I do not, as a rule, participate in ding-dong debates, which defies the purpose of the whole thing. I would urge any admin. to read through my past contributions and reach an independent conclusion on the matter. But I now register the ''strongest possible complaint'' against Loomis for maligning me and deliberately misleading this whole community, by accusing me of a 'pathological intent to mislead', whatever that means. Such accusations could, I believe, justify action in the civil courts. But I have no wish to escalate this little storm, or to reveal my identity. I will, however, make a personal confession: I do indeed have a major failing, which I have struggled to control all my life: that is, I do not suffer fools gladly. To be more precise, I find it difficult to suffer fools at all. I also hunt like a panther, and go straight for the jugular when I detect an obvious weakness. For these faults I apologize, and will do my best to 'draw' my claws in future. But do not question my sincerity: this is the core of my intellectual life and my whole conduct as a woman, a writer, a historian, an academic and a contributor to several international forums. ] 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I commend you for referring to us each by name, that is a sign of improvement. I could have done without being called a "fool", however. People who disagree with you, whether they are right or wrong, should still be treated with respect. ] 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your commendation, Sturat; and if the use of names is the biggest problem between us I will make sure that I use yours in future. My remarks about fools was a general observation, a confession of a personal failing. It was not directed at anyone in particular. I am not aware of ever treating you or any other with obvious disrespect, but your dismissal of me in our earler exchange has, rightly or wrongly, coloured my whole attitude towards you. However, the past is the past, and I urge you, in a spirit of objectivity, to see the obvious poision in Loomis' posting. ] 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Without trying to wade deeply into this particular mess, I have a couple suggestions. 1) Complaints about a user's conduct are more appropriate for that user's talk page than here. Yes, complaints about how they're acting ''at the RD'' may be appropriate here, but make sure you're on topic. 2) If we answer questions by linking to Misplaced Pages articles, and perhaps other ], this will seriously reduce our need to argue over factual accuracy. ] ] 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Clio, I find it helpful, when "staying my blade" and taking the high road to imagine that other editors notice that. And maybe they do. I am getting better at the staying part, really I am. --] 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems possible for someone to cause significant damage to wikipedia by hiding behind NPA. And although I don't know much about clio as an editor I've seen a few eloquently misleading responses of hers.. but this isn't an appropriate forum for a trial so this discussion is inappropriate --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, we do have a judge, jury, and executioner...too bad they are all the same person. :-) ] 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Next item for consensus discussion: Opinion ==
	Let's discuss "Questions which contain an opinion" first:
	:I '''support''' allowing this type of question, so long as there is an actual question in there somewhere. For example: "When was Bill Clinton, the worst President the US ever had, inaugurated ?". While it would have been better without the opinion, I'd still answer the factual portion. ] 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	----
	Let's discuss "Questions which solicit an opinion" next:
	:I '''support''' allowing this type of question. In certain areas, like the Language Ref Desk, pretty much all questions are opinions, like "which of these versions of the sentence is the clearest ?".
	----
	Let's discuss "Opinions in answers to a factual question" last:
	:I '''support''' allowing this type of answer. For example, a question on how to reprogram a cellular phone would cause me to give my opinion of the morality of using a stolen phone and list the possible penalties, if caught. ] 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Rather than break it down, I will say for now that there are times when it is appropriate to give opinion, especially when it's specifically asked for by the questioner. -] 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:According to the talk page guidelines, there's already a general consensus between Wikipedians on the place of opinion on talk pages. The guideline says in part, "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of ], ] and ]. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Similiar standards seem pretty reasonable here. See ]. Some opinion isn't noticable harmful, but it should be discouraged. ] ] 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Also note the existing consensus that ]. When we get ''too much'' into opinion, this is what the RD turns into. So, we need to use judgment, and try to keep off-topic chatter to a minimum. ] ] 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There's also existing consensus that we should "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated." This is from ] which is transcluded at the top of the individial RD pages. ] ] 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Unless you can point to the discussion and consensus that led to the creation of that item, we don't really know if that was just what one person wrote or what the circumstances were. ] 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: I can tell you that I'm personally very confident that the points I made above reflect general consensus, but I'll understand if you don't just take my word for it. If you don't buy it, go ahead and look- any of what you seek is there to see, in the relevant talk pages and histories. At any rate, it's what we have, and if anyone disagrees and wishes to change it, go to the relevant talk pages and make your point. Until then, existing consensus should be the basis for whatever we're deciding about the reference desk, right? ] ] 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I disagree. If you claim there is an existing consensus, the burden of proof is on you. ] 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::See above- I pointed to several other agreed-upon pages that make my point. If you disagree with those pages, that's your choice, but please don't just assert that existing guideline and policy pages don't reflect existing consensus. I'm afraid I cannot say much more about this without pointlessly repeating past arguments, so I'll leave it at that. ] ] 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I am not, I am merely asserting, particularly for the last page, that you have not shown them to be formed based on consensus, so should not claim them to be. ] 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, they were created by the wiki process, which relies on consensus. If you want more "proof", I'm really not sure what to tell you. If you want more information, the histories are available to anyone who cares to look. ] ] 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Is this a good use of Misplaced Pages? ==
	A question I'd removed which was heavily objected to and put back has turned into this: ]. I ask for opinions on whether or not this is a good use of Misplaced Pages. The questioner has ''already been informed'' that Misplaced Pages is not about our personal opinions, and he comes back with "How good is the girls next door TV Series?" ] ] 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think there's a problem with the original question (although I think the poster is pretty much a troll; he's the one responsible for the question about coerced anal sex and a bunch of other drivel), as long as it is answered ''factually'', and respondents hold ourselves to a higher standard than the OP and not use the topic as an invitation to goof off. See, ''this'' is one of my main complaints (THB, take note of this guy cuz he's an example of a non-good faith poster who degenerates): it's not the original question, it's that the original question is just the ''starting point'' of a downward spiral. Which I don't personally think got too bad with this particular thread, but in the past I've seen things like this turn really ugly (gross ugly, not nasty ugly, although I've seen that too). Rather than deleting the thread, I think you should see about getting this editor banned for trolling, cuz I think that's basically what he's doing. I think he's amusing himself by posting hot button questions on the RDs. ] 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think I mostly agree- this thread is nowhere near an example of the worst we get here. I think I was mainly extremely curious whether anyone can assert with a straight face that it's a good use of Misplaced Pages. Things that are irrelevant to the project should be able to go away without much argument or fanfare. ] ] 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Also, does anyone object to my gentle reminder? I sincerely hope this is ''way'' less controversial than outright removal. ] ] 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::The reminder was perfect. And timed/placed perfectly too. Good job! --] 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I doubt anyone could ''possibly'' object to your reminder. However I think it's one of those "overt trolls" that should just be deleted.. NOT that I would delete it because I wouldn't dare to without significant consensus. But come on, constant sex? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I agree- that's why I removed it. I was reverted, perhaps as more of a disapproval of me personally than as an indication that the thread was beneficial. Again, good reason to remind everyone: our biggest concern must always be ''the good of the project'', not our desire for "rule of law", or our personal feelings about other editors. ] ] 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	Just wanted to point out that the above is a good example of how we reach consensus- by ''doing''. We could have abstract arguments all day long about "when is telling people to stay on topic allowed?" but that's no substitute for someone ]. Not that we should be reckless, of course. To me, the above also suggests that putting this thread back didn't help Misplaced Pages, but I realize this may be arguable. The central question all editors should ask themselves with every edit they make is not "is there some rule that tells me this is OK?", but rather "does this edit improve Misplaced Pages?". ] ] 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Where it doesn't interfere with ] of course --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::An action that improves Misplaced Pages is not disruption, by definition. I suppose doing the right thing in a needlessly dramatic way might be a middle ground, tho. (I would assert in such a case that when the trouble it causes outweighs the good, it's no longer a net improvement for the project.) ] ] 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Maybe we could refer questioneers seeking advice about sex techniques or medical advice to the Columbia University Go Ask Alice site at . They seem to be happy to take on any such question and refer it to medical personnel if appropriate. ] 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::As has been mentioned before, the problem with removing something and assuming that, if nobody puts it back, that means you had consensus, is that there are so many edits on these pages that likely nobody will ever notice the deletion. So, people can just delete anything they don't like, and it will likely stay deleted. That's not what we want to happen here. If you insist on deleting things which are not disruptive, without consensus, would you at least be willing to keep a "deletion log" so we have some way to verify that those things should have been deleted ? We could create a deletion log page and you could add a link to any edits which are deletions. ] 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis 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 Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Unreadable in dark mode

Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but Misplaced Pages:Reference desk is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week! @Baseball Bugs 97.113.14.140 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. 97.113.14.140 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.) -- Jack of Oz 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jdlrobson and Izno! Looks great now. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Humanities and header hatnote

Last week, Mod creator decided to add a hatnote to the humanities desk, and then PrimeHunter decided to remove it a few days later. Here's the content:

"WP:RD/H" redirects here. For the template header used in all areas of the reference desks, see WP:Reference desk/Header.

Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was one reason given for its removal. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, the comparison – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for WP:Reference desk/header they probably know how to find it. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bots

Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words Avyanna.Owam (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake Desi media content querant

Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.) Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --Viennese Waltz 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)