Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:42, 27 September 2011

• WT:RD

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

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Closed question

I collapsed the Israel question on RD/H, which was answered and looked like it was about to turn into a debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good and timely move. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the question had been answered, and request that it be reopened. There are many reliable sources which have discussed US-Israel relations, and why the US supports Israel. Misplaced Pages should not be censored. Edison (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked an "Are you still beating your wife?" type of question, and it was quickly demonstrated that the OP's premise was untrue. Note that the OP's only other entry was, "Why does France still hang on to several of its colonies instead of giving them independence?" which is almost a provocative question also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is most certainly not true that it was "demonstrated" that there was a false premise in the OP's question. Someone gave an opinion, without any reference to substantiate it. If there can be long threads which beat up on the US for having the death penalty, and which make other countries uncomfortable, then this thread can be allowed. Edison (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Turns out there actually is an article on the specific subject, which another editor added. That should answer the OP's provocative question sufficiently. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So when the next question comes up about "Why does only the US have capital punishment among developed nations," or other "beat your wife" questions relating to any country, the consensus is I could just refer the questioner to some article which bears in a similar way on the topic, and close the discussion? The article on US Israel relations states that the US favors Israel over its neighbors, but does not answer the OP's question as to "Why," so it does not answer the question. Rather this censorship just says that such a question related to Israel is not allowed. Edison (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question was, "Why does the US unconditionally support everything Israel does?" As Jayron said, "It doesn't." Do you argue that the US does indeed "unconditionally" support "everything" Israel does??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, President Johnson is quoted by some sources as basically saying, "Yes." He had little objection to their attacking a US ship in international waters and killing many crewmen. Other Presidents (Truman through Obama) have been partisan toward Israel, but to lesser degrees, occasionally objecting to some policies or actions. The reasons for their favoring Israel over that country's neighbors are not made clear in the article on US-Israeli relations, but this policy has been discussed in various scholarly sources, which could have been employed in providing an answer to the question, had not censorship been imposed. Edison (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're soapboxing in an inappropriate place. When someone asks a politically sensitive question, I think the best thing we can do is try to keep the discussion narrowly focused. If someone asks why some US states still have capital punishment, we should try to keep answers along the lines of the political circumstances that have led to the continuation of the practice rather than allow bickering on the merits of the death penalty. In this case, it was made apparent early on that the question was based on a fallacy. Edison, your comment threatened to open up a debate on the Arab-Israeli issue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forbid references should be provided vis a vis "the Arab-Israeli issue," since it has no importance in modern geopolitics, and since it has not been discussed in countless textbooks and scholarly articles. Rather than preemptorily closing the thread, it would have been more appropriate to provide reliable sources to show the incorrectness of any wrong assumption or false premise in the question, or to show that it might be a bit of a stretch to say "unconditional." The "conditions" placed on Israel's actions have in fact been demonstrably pretty limited. The fallacy would be to claim that successive US administrations has not been strongly supportive of Israel for 63 years. The cases where the US has criticized such actions as expansion of settlements is one such example, and another is the prosecution of an Israeli spy. These or any other areas of conflict or of US criticism could be kept in perspective over a long relationship which has generally been strongly pro-Israel. Then we could have provided reliable sources which have discussed why US administrations back to Truman have been extremely friendly toward Israel, with military and economic assistance in the many billions of dollars, and the frequent use of veto power in the Security Council. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, and it is not "soapboxing" to discuss it. The "soapbox" would be in the style of discussion, and not in the topic. We do not have "forbidden soapbox topics," in any guideline or policy I can find. The closing of the thread smacked more of "I don't like the topic." I did not see folks jumping in to close discussions such as Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 13#How many people have been killed by the United States?. There was Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 21#why is the USA more right-wing than europe and the rest of the westrn world? Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 7#Native Americans?(which asked" Why did the US feel justified taking land from Native Americans?") Rather than preemptory closing down the threads, editors just pointed out questionable assumptions in the question. It is rare that a thread such as these about nations and their policies gets closed down, and it has to get to extreme levels such as Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 8#what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done? (which actually got closed). Edison (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked a question with a false premise, and it was answered. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When the question was collapsed, there had only been Jayron's response that "Carter did not unconditionally support them" and mine which, to the contrary, said there was a long history of strong support. The question had certainly not been "answered" at the time it was collapsed, as Bugs claims, with any sort of explanation for why the support existed. It was apparently closed to prevent it being answered, which is contrary to the purposes of the Ref Desk. Edison (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Strong support" does not equate to "unconditionally supports everything Israel does." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Ref Desk we do not refuse to answer questions if we believe the OP has an imperfect understanding of the subject matter. If misunderstandings are present, and a false premise is in the question, then point out that false premise and go ahead and answer the basic question, which is "Why has the US strongly supported Israel for 63 years, rarely questioning its actions?" There are many reasons why one country might become an ally or supporter of another. A proper answer would be referenced and encyclopedic, and not just say "You're wrong, so go away." Do you follow the Science Desk? Do you have any concept of what proportion of the science questions contain some false premise, but get a good answer anyway? Edison (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The lack of followup by the OP-IP should tell you something. It was basically a drive-by shot at the USA, or Israel, or both - and doesn't deserve the time of day. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We normally have no requirement that the OP present followup coments , clarifications, or responses. I looked at the September 11 Ref Desk Humanities questions, and found 5 with followup by the OP, and 6 with no followup by the OP, including "Why isn't the date of Jesus' crucifixion or birth known?", which might be taken as expressing doubt in the historicity of Jesus. It got about 30 responses from 14 editors, and no preemptive closure. We should not make up different ad-hoc policies based on the subject matter of questions. Edison (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The date of Jesus birth and death are not known, so it's a reasonable question. The claim that the USA always supports Israel, no matter what, is not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is also a "reasonable question" of why the US, since Truman, has so strongly supported Israel. I was looking forward to reading some referenced answers (Did Presidents say in their memoirs that they felt so bad about the Holocaust they felt the need to back Israel? Did political advisors of presidents, in their memoirs, discuss how many electoral votes in which states were at stake in which elections depending on the President or candidate's middle east policy? Was there a cold war strategy to tweak the USSR's nose by backing the other side when they supplied Egypt with arms?). As I pointed out above, in many Ref Desk threads we move past a false assumption in the OP's question and answer the basic question. It is easy to refute any claim the US has always or even frequently had a hands-off or even-handed stance vis a vis Israel and its neighboring countries, as witnessed by massive foreign aid and frequent use of Security Council vetoes. Edison (talk)

"Why has the US so strongly supported Israel" is a legitimate RD question. If you had said on the project page, "Perhaps we should rephrase the question as `Why has the US so strongly supported Israel,'" that would have been a good way to handle it. Instead, you started irrelevantly soapboxing, leaving little reason to keep open a question based on a faulty premise that was about to turn into a fervent debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I said on the project page was in the least irrelevant: the US using its Security Council veto in Israel's behalf? Giving more foreign aid to Israel than any other country since Israel's founding? Johnson's insistence on hushing up the Liberty attack? Such matters are highly relevant to US-Israel relations. Edison (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterilize

The discussion on sterilizing a razor was closed as medical advice. I've reverted this on the grounds that tool maintenance is not medical advice.

While sterilization is tangentially related to medicine, I feel that allowing this closure for indirect relevance to medical topics would set a precedent for forbidding a vast range of subjects from tobacco to bicycle helmets. APL (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Advice on preventive hygiene does not need a doctor's qualificaion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not serious? Tool maintenance? This question is blatant medical advice. For fucks sake its basically asking how not to get hepatitis/HIV/etc. Or is it also appropriate if I was to ask how to go about not getting an STD? This question is highly inappropriate and should be closed immediately--Jac16888 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The spread of STDs and the probability of getting a particular one via different types of intercourse is often discussed on the reference desk. Especially HIV since there are good statistics for it. APL (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I support APL. The Masked Booby (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like medical advice. My first thought on seeing that question was, "Why on God's green earth would you want to use a 'pre-owned' razor? Are you nuts?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the thread, I think this should be removed, as it essentially asks: "How do I avoid getting sick?", which is a clear request for medical advice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming the OP of the question is going to use the razor of themselves. What if they're using it to cut vegetables or shave a teddy bear? 79.91.233.172 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please cite a case where a teddy bear has died from HIV. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

HIV was invented by the government to eliminate teddy bears. True story. APL (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, it isn't medical advice if it is not asking for three things: 1) Prognosis 2) Diagnosis or 3) Treatment. Prognosis means the outcome of a disease, diagnosis means the existance of a disease and treatment means the measures taken to ammeliorate a disease. Questions about sterilizing equipment don't prognose, diagnose, or treat any diseases. This question isn't about medical advice. Doctors and other medical professionals don't give out advice on how to sterilize things. I am a complete zealot when it comes to medical advice, and it is well known that I more than any other reference desk regular overdoes it when it comes to closing down questions. Nearly all of the questions I have every closed down as medical advice have been contested and reinstated, so if I think this isn't medical adivce, its a clear notion that it might not be. Seriously, I have never met anyone who was more zealous about this than me, and if I don't have a problem with it, I can't believe anyone else would. --Jayron32 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As has already been stated several times, this question boils down to one simple point "how do I not get sick?" Which is clearly a request for medical advice. I was under the impression that pretty much the whole point of not giving medical advice is because if we did, and we're wrong, and someone gets hurt/ill/whatever, we could face legal action, which is why this question is inappropriate. For example, say the question was answered "it will be sterilized just fine with hot chocolate" OP follows advice and uses razor previously used by a bloke with Hep B and so on--Jac16888 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice is avoided because medical advice is legally regulated. Not because someone could theoretically sue the foundation or us personally. (That's true of all information on WP.) So far as I know, you don't need to be legally licensed by any authority to sterilize a razor for private use. I'm pretty sure barbers aren't in danger of being arrested for practicing medicine without a license because they sterilized a few razors without supervision from an MD. APL (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Jayron, particularly on "prognosis, diagnosis, or treatment", and note similarly that I grade myself as being more likely than the average RefDesker to conclude that a given topic is medical advice. This isn't. — Lomn 17:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble over whether or not the question (or responses) violated the specific letter of the medical advice guideline. "Diagnosis, Prognosis, or Treatment" is a helpful rule of thumb only, and bickering over whether this is or isn't a 'treatment' or 'prognosis' entirely misses the point. Pretending that we could anticipate every possible situation and that we wrote a guideline that captured every possible circumstance where it might be appropriate to remove a question – while at the same time guaranteeing that all acceptable questions are permitted to remain – would be absurd.

The question here is not whether or not the guideline permits this question to be removed, but whether or not it is appropriate for the question to be removed. You can refer to WP:IAR, WP:5P, WP:UCS, or whatever other alphabet soup you like; ultimately the important thing is to determine whether it is in the interests of the original poster, the editors here, and the Misplaced Pages project as a whole for this question to be rejected as beyond our scope and skills.

There's no question that it is possible to transmit blood-borne diseases – some of which are chronic, incurable, and fatal, and which include hepatitis, HIV, and possibly vCJD – through improperly-cleaned and -sterilized blades. The OP is asking us how to prevent infection (of himself or others) with these diseases. An incorrect response could be dangerous or fatal. People responding to the question don't know what the razor (blade or handle) is made from or how the two are joined (infectious particles are often protected from sterilization when they are sheltered by hinges or crevices in tools). No one is referring to relevant references or sources describing proper sterilization techniques, their applicability to various pathogens, or their respective limitations. Several people have given advice presented as being "good enough for most concerns", which is flatly appalling.

The reason why we have a guideline regarding medical advice is to discourage our volunteers from offering advice – of a type that ought to come from a suitably-trained professional – which if given improperly may harm our readers' health (through acts of omission or commission) and harm the reputation of Misplaced Pages. This question and its responses fall far to the foul side of that line. By that reasonable standard, it was appropriate to close the discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You seem to be using the logic that if death can result from applying an incorrect answer, then the discussion should be closed.

Obviously this standard, if applied universally (And not just to "icky" topics) would cover a huge segment of human experience.

If someone asks if he should be wearing a bicycle helmet are you going to advocate closing the discussion on the grounds that the question-asker is "asking how to avoid a concussion" and that "an incorrect response could be dangerous or fatal"? APL (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to a ridiculous absolute statement that you made up. Sterilizing sharp tools that may have come into contact with blood (and which may in turn pierce another human's skin) isn't like riding a bicycle; you should be embarrassed to try to draw the parallel. The proper sterilization of tools is a very complex and specialized field. Indeed, it often isn't possible to properly sterilize equipment not designed from the beginning for sterilization—particularly without equipment and materials completely unavailable to the average individual. Unfortunately, there is a certain subpopulation at the Ref Desk who have seen medical dramas on television or perhaps watched their barber at work, and therefore believe themselves qualified to give advice about safe sterilization protocols. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed at all to draw the parallel. Just because we're all manly men who know all about blunt traumas, doesn't mean we're any more qualified to discuss those risks than we are any other medical risks. (And besides, I strongly suspect that riding a bicycle is far more deadly than using an pre-owned straight-razor. Lot's of people do both things, but you only ever read about the bicycle deaths.)

After rereading your original statement, and your reply, I'm still uncertain what standard you're applying if it's not, "if death can result from a wrong answer, we can't provide references". You try to say that disease control is a specialized field, but I can't think of a risk to life and limb that can be authoritatively discussed by laymen. (Hence the need for references, of course.)

For example, the many risks posed by cigarettes are extremely complicated, technical, and often subtle and debatable. I absolutely, 100% do not have the technical knowledge needed to discuss those health-risks, but I sure as heck don't need to be a doctor to link to our article on the risks, or to studies about specific risks. And this is routinely done on the reference desk.

And that's why I'm fighting this. If it becomes established that consensus is against allowing questions that relate to life and limb, we open the door for removing a large number of questions. You seem to be advocating removing potentially dangerous questions about pathogens, but there's nothing intrinsic about a razor blade that makes it more medical than a bicycle helmet or a cigar. APL (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note : When I said that lots of people "do both things", I was not advocating riding a bicycle and using a straight razor simultaneously. APL (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no doctor would accept a patient who makes appointments to discuss how to clean his razor, this isn't medical advice, it's basic hygiene. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is outside of what doctors handle. The prohibition on medical advice is because medical diagnosis and prognosis is legally regulated. You need a license to dispense that kind of advice. So if you need a diagnosis, you need to go make an appointment with a licensed doctor. If a Misplaced Pages user was found to be diagnosing patients without a medical license he (or the foundation) could theoretically be convicted of practicing medicine without a license.

Prohibiting questions on cleaning your razor falls well outside that umbrella, and is therefore outside the original intent of the prohibition on medical advice. APL (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fear of lawsuits has precious little to do with our restriction on medical advice. I would say, in fact, that it is by far the least important reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? I mean if someone asked how to maintain their chainsaw to promote safe operation would you try to kill that too? Googlemeister (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How to clean his razor is a very different matter from how he should clean someone else's razor for his own use. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, would we even need to have this discussion if the question were "I would like to reuse hypodermic syringes that I bought from a stranger; what cleaning steps should I take to make them safe?" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be tricky to shave with a syringe personally... But seriously telling a person how to freebase heroin recreationally is also not going to give a prognoses, a diagnosis or offer treatment either and thus would not fall afoul of the medical advice checklist. Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That could be easily answered with references that used needles were not recommended. (Presumably the question-asker is diabetic, or has a diabetic pet. Those needles get pricey in the quantities that you end up buying them, so the question isn't totally off-the-wall, even if the answer is a resounding "no".)

However, used or antique straight-razors are very commonly bought,sold, and used. They're often passed down as family heirlooms.

I'll bet that you could walk into your local pawn shop and find a very nice straight razor. APL (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypodermic needles are at least medical equipment, unlike razors. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who went berserk about the incalculable dangers of the same razor touching more than one person's skin must never have been in any of the US barbershops where the same straight razor was used on every customer, one right after another, to do some cleanup of the hair on the neck. It might have been dunked in Barbicide (introduced 1947). Even back in 1910, medical journals discussed infections such as syphilis spread by barbers using the same razor and alum (styptic) on different customers. Theoretically, many US states in the early 20th century required barbers to keep equipment sterile after each use, but the means were not always clear. A 1917 law in Indianapolis, Indiana required the barber to sterilize equipment after each use by submersion in 5% carbolic acid for 10 minutes, or in boiling water for one minute, or in 65% alcohol. (This is presented as history, and not as a medical recommendation for present day practice). After people became aware that HIV could be transmitted by implements such as razors, in the 1980's, the barbershop straight razor's popularity declined. One book says that barbers then started autoclaving implements and using UV light for sterilization, but I doubt that the typical straight razor's fancy handle would survive autoclavings. "Milady's Standard Professional Barbering" (2010) has a chapter on the barbershop ofuse of the straight razor, and says it is preferred over safety razors for the barber's use giving someone a shave, but the section on sterilization appears to be among the pages not shown online. The book does show a section on disinfecting and sanitizing barber tools. The book says that modern barbershops sanitize by washing, and disinfect with chemicals which kill most pathogens, but which might leave some spores, and do not generally autoclave or bake to actually sterilize to surgical standards. Page 90 says that implements which "break the skin" or come into contact with body fluids do get sterilized or disposed of as nonreused sharps. This is provided as information and we make no recommendation of following the practices described. As for hypo needles, before the advent of plastic disposable syringes, they were certainly reused. A school immunization would have a tray of presumably autoclaved needles, used one per child, and replaced on the same reused syringe. A nurse who worked in the mid 20th century in the US said that for a mass immunization, as when there was an outbreak of some pathogen, that the same needles were likely reused for each patient, with an alcohol wipe in between, since the local doctor did not have thousands of needles. Certainly there is considerable risk in such a practice, as shown by HIV outbreaks in pediatric units of third world hospitals when hypos and other transcutaneous equipment were reused without proper sterilization. or when junkies shared needles.Edison (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing/removing questions

This edit and edit summary got me thinking—I'm not sure that we should be so quick to outright removing questions that are unfit for the desk. I think it would be much more friendly and in line with WP:BITE to simply close the discussion with {{archive top}} and bottom, and leave your rationale there, instead of the edit summary of a removal. I guess another option would be to use {{hat}} and {{hab}}, but in my opinion those should continue to be used instead for hiding tangential bickering or other non-constructive comments inside of an otherwise useful conversation. Now that I've typed this, I've decided to just . —Akrabbim 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the question because I thought it was not appropriate and because Belchman, as a RD regular, should know better that it was not. Equally, s/he should be able to go through the page history to know what happened to the question. BTW, I don't believe WP:BITE applies here,. Wikiweek (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly amazed. How am I asking for an "opinion"? Apparently the current fad is the asking-for-an-opinion paranoia —we have had many of these before, such as the medical advice paranoia. --Belchman (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no medical advice paranoia (whatever that means). The RD has systematically rejected giving medical advice. Wikiweek (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I thought about removing that Q also. Are you deliberately testing the limits here? Did you search yourself for any objective measures of facial similarity before posting for opinions? Franamax (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine you're before a law enforcer. He has a video/photograph of you committing a crime. You claim it isn't you, but a friend of yours who doesn't look like you at all. He says that it obviously isn't him. You reply: "Have you got any objective means of proving the face in the video/photograph is mine?". Your paranoia is sometimes so ridiculous it becomes hilarious. --Belchman (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that being obsessed (which I suppose we are not) is no paranoia? Quite in contrary, you seem to have some paranoid thoughts.Quest09 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, so the only way we are supposed to answer the question is by providing references. Do you genuinely believe there may be references which discuss whether those 2 people look alike? If not, then you were clearly asking an inappropriate question for the RD. Incidentally as those 2 images are NFCC, showing them on the page was a clear cut violation of policy. Since you specifically formatted the images for display, I presume it wasn't an accident because of a lack of familiarity with how to link to images. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Belchman, what the heck kind of answer were you looking for if not an opinion? Humor us in our stupidity, and give us an example of your ideal answer to that question. (Feel free to make up an answer. I'm looking for Form not factual accuracy.) APL (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP posts two photos which he presumably thinks happen to look kind of similar, and asks us if they look alike. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked a similarly subjective question on resemblance a while ago. Here's the link: "Resemblance of actors portraying famous people". I introduced the question by admitting to its subjectivity, but saw it as more of a difference in perception than opinion. Nil Einne is quite correct that finding references addressing Belchman's question might be tricky. I guess in the case of my question, references might have been findable, but I wasn't interested in them. I was interested in people pointing to examples from their own subjective point of view. Each and every example resonated in my own subjective point of view. I was glad so many people had responded, and I'm still glad no one removed the question, despite its subjectivity. I don't think we need to remove questions for being unanswerable or subjective. I don't even think we need to hat them. The only thing that counts is how we respond to them (and not responding at all is one possibility. A very powerful one when everyone chooses not to respond :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A big difference between your question and Belchman (other then the fact you acknowledge it could be OT whereas from the above Belchman seems to be refusing to accept this) is that your question allowed plenty of referenced answers to be given. While it's true people gave their personal opinions on resemblence of actors to famous people, many of them were in fact actors who had played a famous person. And while the respondents opinions may have influence their answers, they were often providing partially referenced answers (I know at least some of them mention the role in the person's article). In at least 2 cases, someone answering said the person had been noted for their similarity (this is fairly common on the RD and is effectively a way of saying, there are probably references out there but I can't be bothered looking for them). What you chose to do with the answers afterwards is of course not our biggest concern. I presume if someone With Belchman's question, he already provided two people. The only real referencing that would be likely to be able to provide would be in regards to specific claims relating to any analysis of the similarity, but it doesn't even appear that Belchman wants such analysis. Note that I don't think anyone is suggesting we remove all questions that relate more to opinions then references. Also, for many it may be a case of 'not how I would have handled it but not going to object' Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of hatting bad questions rather than deleting them. Deletion is the "nuclear option" and should only be used on the most blatant vandalism where everyone will be in agreement. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Belchman's apology

The Belchman, henceforth 'I' or 'me', is very sorry for the inconvenience caused by his former inquiry not adjusting to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk, henceforth 'the Reference Desk' or 'RD', guidelines. His relatively long presence in the RD notwithstanding, the Belchman's behavior can occasionally fit the definition of the adjective naïve; especially when he strives to quench his thirst for knowledge, no matter how absurd the question he posed may seem to his neighbors.

Consequently, the Belchman timidly asks —if he may be so bold— his fellow RD contributors here, behind the scenes, in a warm and calm atmosphere before a virtual fireplace, whether, to their mind, these two people have some certain facial feature in common. The Belchman believes there is something, particularly in these two peoples' smiles, that might contribute to what he perceives to be a faint likeness. The Belchman, however, acknowledges that this presumed likeness may well be the product of these two persons' common Irish ancestry, or just purely illusory with little or no empiric basis. —Belchman (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mairéad_Farrell.JPG

File:Bobbysandslongkesh1973.jpg

I have removed the thumbnails and left wikilinks to the images. Both of them are non-free, and fair use does not extend to this page. Akrabbim (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these two pictures happen to look kind of similar. I wouldn't read too much into that. No big deal. What's really irritating to my sensibility is talking in third person. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Similarity is in the eye of the beholder. I am sooooo tempted to point out that all white people look alike, but I don't think everyone will get the joke. -- kainaw™ 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And those people look nothing alike ! Can't you see how much more color is in the face of the one on the right ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

These people are not alike, they just have long hair and look somehow alike. @kainaw: it makes sense only if you are not white, which I cannot judge over the Internet since on the Internet, no one know you are not white. Wikiweek (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There was once a series of humor books called "Separated at Birth?" which consisted of photos of unrelated individuals who happened to look similar in pairs of photos. One of the funnier ones was a picture of Mick Jagger juxtaposed with a picture of Don Knotts as "Mr. Limpet". The photos in question here would have been appropriate entries in those books. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Put me to work...

I'm trying to find somewhere on wikipedia where I can do some repetitive task that is easy to complete. I was working on old merger tags but that requires thought, so is there anything I can do which requires little to no amount of thought? JoshuaJohnLee 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mindless repetitive work is usually done by bots. You can do it also if you really want to. Just pick something that is obviously wrong like replacing "alot" with "a lot" or replacing "also also" with "also". Google will allow you to quickly find articles containing errors. Just search for something like "alot site:en.wikipedia.org". -- kainaw™ 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything in Category:Misplaced Pages backlog needs looking at, though much of those seem to require some thought to resolve. You might be able to find something in the Misplaced Pages:Database reports that suits your preference. There's no shortage of work to be done. Franamax (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in working on the sister site http://commons.wikimedia.org/Main_Page - typically category diffusion - there's tons to do their - suggest looking at your state/city/country/interst area. Possibly there is similar work in categories on wikipedia, but my experience is that there is less work to be found.

Or you could go through articles correcting wp:mos, tidying up references is another task bots don't yet do reliablly eg converting from:

to

• Ruth Chambers; Gill Wakley (2002), "History of over the counter medicines", Obesity and Overweight Matters in Primary Care, Radcliffe Publishing, p. 101 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

....

There are some lists and links also at Misplaced Pages:To-do list. stub-sorting, disambiguation pages, translations etc etc..Imgaril (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol, including its sub-sections about things like image pages that are in a "hat" that you have to click 'show' to read. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis removal

I interpreted this as a violation of our "No medical advice" policy, particularly the last interrogative sentence that refers to the OP's specific case. Here's the diff. I'll leave it up to the RefDeskers to correct this if I've made a mistake.--el Aprel (-_facienda) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You did right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, normal sleep paralysis would be OK to discuss, but it did sound like they were describing an abnormal medical condition. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Troll post closed - block suggested

I have closed a discussion from a self-admited troll . As I mentioned there while closing the discussion, it is improbable that someone could come up with all that and not appreciate the many reasons why 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' tech doesn't work in real life or the plenty of other problems with what they're saying. I can only conclude the new post is more trolling. Considering they've been warned before I feel a block is in order but can't be bothered entering in to a potentially long discussion on the subject and this may need to go to ANI anyway so am not going to fight for it. I wanted to delete the entire thread but considering there had been several replies and the history of deleting such threads on the RD I decided against it. Despite the fact it seems clear from last time (see their reply to RDT where they admitted trolling and ) they were notified (by someone else) that they have no desire to seriously discuss their behaviour, I have notified them since I suggested a block. Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am only surprised that this stupid question was not nipped sooner. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for the troll to be iced for awhile, just in case Jayron doesn't get to it first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They issued him a warning. So that's all there is to do with the IP, at least for now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He's being discussed at WP:ANI now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for the next week. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another removed. —Akrabbim 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a "Honey I shrunk the kids" question is worth answering, and IMHO if we don't end the discussion with some ArXiv preprint that suggests a speculative idea how to actually do it, we haven't done our job. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You would think that, being a proven troll-enabler. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If the question had not been censored I would have responded with a reference on embiggenator technology (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Proven troll-enabler" is clearly just name-calling, and is not at all WP:CIVIL. APL (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a demonstrable fact. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Every time you or one of your like-minded associates argues for allowing troll questions to be answered, you are enabling the troll. That makes you a troll-enabler. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the controversy that enables the trolls, and you yourself Bugs are often front-and-centre in doing just that when you reiterate your inflammatory rhetoric, like when you got sucked into arguing with the "drive-by" IP. From my observation, Wnt's position is that just calmly and rationally answering the question (possibly with "this is unanswerable") effectively disarms the troll, since they no longer receive the desired response. That's not a totally invalid premise, however site policy and consensus is against it, so we are unable to try the experiment. Your use of the bald phrase carries a connotation of deliberate troll-enabling, and I don't believe it to be the case. OTOH unintentional troll-enablement, yes I happen to agree with you - but do step up and take a bow yourself. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the arguing by the enablers that feeds the trolls. If the enablers would keep their traps shut about it, there would be no need for me or others to comment further. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What a convenient world it would be if everyone who disagreed with us "kept their traps shut". We could make some truly colossal mistakes and it would still go down as a triumph... ;) Franamax (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not "disagreement" as such. The core problem is that the enablers have made it clear in the past that they don't care that a user is banned or that a question is obviously trolling. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point of people who take the same position, that if we just ignored the ban status or motivation for asking a question and answered calmly and rationally, the problem would go away, because no-one cared, thus no attention-getting reward for the trolls. The additional benefit is that a question-answer set is generated, so anyone curious in future about telescopes and Uranus will have a searchable resource. Believing that doesn't make the person fundamentally bad or worthy of a pejorative. And it's not going to happen anyway, RD is not separate from the en:wiki project and has to follow well-established consensus on dealing with this type of thing. There's no need to wish that people would shut up, because the community voice is on our side and not theirs. If Wnt was actively circumventing things with reversions, that could be a different story, but I'm not seeing it. I'll reiterate, your willingness to engage in combat on these issues is as much part of the "show" as anything else. Your other, more sober efforts look pretty decent to me. Not trying to be patronizing, supposed to be a compliment. :) Franamax (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't involved in the discussion that banned LC, nor am I actively trying to get his countless socks blocked anymore. The problem isn't really the troll as such, its his enablers. And if they don't like getting called out for their enabling, the problem is theirs, not mine. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this IP, so far as I know, is not accused of being LC or any banned user. He simply asked five questions which some people choose to categorize as "trolling". But our purpose here on the Refdesk is not to decide if the questioner is a "troll", but to answer the question if it can reasonably be given an informative answer. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sez who? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This particular OP choose to categorise their own questions as trolling. There is no need for us to 'decide' if someone is a troll if they self-admit it. Note that even if not all their questions are trolling, it doesn't change the fact they are a troll. Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just too much fun, Buggs consistently fails to see his problem. I can just see him screaming "Everybody stop Yelling" at a shouting match and truly expecting that action to bring peace and quiet. This place would be a boring habitat for trolls, and social rejects without the likes of Buggs to keep things stirred up. Oh Crap, this IP has only 1 edit, time to repeat some illogical nonsense on how that must matter!!!.67.78.255.226 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that Floridians are in love with their palms? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that if contributing to Misplaced Pages was a crime, there would not be enough evidence to convict you? 71.43.35.197 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but even though I haven't had a lot of time for wikipedia lately , I've still contributed more useful stuff today than you have. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. See you when your checkuser block is over. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bugs, I agree with you, but it's getting hard to stand up with you with that nonsense. Bugs choice of words might be suspect to some, but he has a valid point. Why leave that stupid question about the spoon up, seriously? Someone is screwing around with us, and we are all buying it, apparently. So troll-enabler is the wrong word, but to let stupid question like that stand will only encourage that troll to waste more of our collective ref-desk time. It certainly doesn't help Misplaced Pages, and it doesn't help the Ref Desks themselves.

Why don't we try a little experiment? For one week, we won't delete anything at all, troll or banned user. Let's see how that goes. There needs to be some quality control or this place will just become Yahoo Answers. Mingmingla (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Of note: Two previous trolls used to copy/paste questions from Yahoo Answers. The goal was to see how much time would be wasted on them. That was back when Encylopedia Dramatica closed and they had to find somewhere else to keep track of their troll points. -- kainaw™ 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

why can't I see edit link to start a thread?

I mean, without signing in? --117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I know. Click the "ask a question" tab. --117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an "Edit" tab at the top, to edit the entire page, isn't appropriate for huge pages like the Misplaced Pages Ref Desks. We do have section edit tabs at the top of each section and subsection, though. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the OP is referring to the 'new section' tab which should appear on every desk (along with the 'edit' tab) and should generally work fine. The most likely reason why it didn't appear for the OP is because of a bug which has been discussed (and I've encountered) before where non-protected pages appear protected for anons. Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with Misplaced Pages. Follow the instructions on this page and it should return the edit links to normal. You may have to do that every time you want to edit the page if the problem keeps happening AvrillirvA (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Computing Desk: Syntax errors

Recent edit by User:TheGrimme damaged syntax on the desk. I notified the user and have repaired the changes. I'm just posting here for the record. Nimur (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing they're a newbie who doesn't know double square brackets are required syntax, and therefore removed the "redundant" brackets. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User keeps posting on my talk page

The user who has posted questions about Law and Order has repeatedly asked me, on my talk page, to watch the episode and answer his questions. I will not do this, and have repeatedly told him so, but I'm beginning to feel a bit hassled. Is there a way I can block him from my talk page? I've had a look in the Help and Village Pump sections but to no avail. I don't want to stop his questions being answered in the proper place - which is not my talk page! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is starting to get on my nerves as well. This morning he deleted a post of mine which was reminding him that the ref desk is not a discussion forum. I raised it on his talk page but I don't know if it will make any difference. --Viennese Waltz 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In that particular case I dunno if what he did was really that bad. I strongly dislike those who delete answers they regard as OT or which point out their questions are not suitable for the desk. But since he did actual delete his question which I agree was OT that's in some ways a better outcome even if it was meant taking out your response which was appropriate to that question. He replaced it with what is a loosely related question (although not the sort of 'asking the same question with different words' we sometimes get) but looks to me like a question that was perhaps marginal suitable for the desk (although I'm not a regular at WP:RD/E) even if something that it will be difficult for anyone to answer without having seen the movie (the did anyone see part in his replacement question can be read as a way of pointing out it's unlikely you can answer the question if you haven't see the movie). I believe RD/E has had problems before with people asking obscure questions about movies that even someone who's seen the movie may not remember. One in particular (not this one) already appears to know the answer. So perhaps questions like the one he replaced it with are not particular welcome either, particularly if they keep coming from the same person (and harassing people to answer them is of course completely unacceptable). But I guess what I'm saying is if he's willingly deleting his OT or unsuitable questions, that's at least some progress. Not posting anymore will of course be even better progress. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A very small suggestion: just ignore him. He'll probably go away once you stop responding. If he doesn't, it'll be clear how one-sided this is and it'll strengthen any requirements that he stop posting nonsense on your page. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean Archer123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Most likely the same guy, which I deduce from their style. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the same guy. Numerous blocks last year, including a 1-year block which just recently expired, hence the 1-year gap in editing. Somewhat of a pest, but mostly harmless. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I told him to go find a TV/movie forum site, didn't answer his second question, and he stopped bugging me. Just don't make eye contact and he'll move on, at least to someone else. —Akrabbim 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He stopped pestering me about a couple of films (War and Face/Off) when I told him I had no intention of watching them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Banned user

I just noticed that 99.88.78.94 was tagged as a suspected sock of a banned user. A cursory glance at the contributions confirms this for me, as they have the same TV/movie hyper-interests, and the same way of posting on user talk pages with "Message for xx" headings and all that. If this is true, then maybe we don't need to be dealing with all this at all. Any other thoughts? —Akrabbim 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Close enough to Timmy Polo's editing pattern for me. Blocked indefinitely as a sock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget his IP, I noticed you only blocked Sean Archer. —Akrabbim 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for a month on the 9th by another admin. We don't indefinitely block IPs, but if he goes back to editing under it when the block expires it'll be caught quickly enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This that the most recent block was from 9/9/2010 to 9/8/11? —Akrabbim 13:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually until 8/9/11 (d'oh, regional differences), but I get your point. Hmmm... why is the contributions page still showing a "currently blocked" bar? I'm going to take that to ANI. For now, I'm going to leave the (apparently expired but still active) block settings as they are, but will obviously block again should the editor turn out to be able to edit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is strange. My popups don't indicate that they are blocked, and they have edited as recently as Sep 20. —Akrabbim 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the pink bar, and you're right about the last edit. He has not edited since his named account was blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On WP:ANI they are saying that if an editor is autoblocked, his most recent block entry will redisplay, and that it's worked that way for a long time. Whether that approach is a "bug" or a "feature" might be a matter of opinion. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Randi Randi Randi...

In 3 weeks this OP has plied RD/M with enquiries about what James Randi thinks. I propose setting a quota of maximum one question a year about James Randi's inner thoughts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what "setting a quota" means in practice, but I'll give moral support to removing any further such questions, on the basis of being outside the mandate of the Ref desks. Looie496 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bowei Huang? I thought he was indef blocked. -- kainaw™ 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. As is his many many many socks including Bowei Huang, Brickfield, A1DF67... -- kainaw™ 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The account that is asking these questions, Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs), is not blocked. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But, all of Bowei Huang's socks redirect to Bowei Huang 2. -- kainaw™ 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, he was allowed to stay active as long as he kept to ONE account. The admins must have been feeling generous at the time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The questions require largely uninformed speculation to answer them. We should not be attempting that. They should be ignored. Deletion will make that more likely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In my mind the ideal response to these types of questions would be absolutely no response at all, but since it looks like that option is impossible I just hatted them all. If anyone besides Bowei Huang think I did wrong you are more than welcome to revert. Royor (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I just left an unambiguous warning at his talk page. If this continues, either with Randi or with another topic, it will be ended. --Jayron32 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bravo to both of you. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheap shots by 88.8.79.204

I'm sick and tired of this user's anti-German problems . I don't care if he was beaten by some German kids in school, or if some German guy owes him some money. I don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust. THIS place is no place for his poison (he should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems, not to Misplaced Pages). He kind of reminds me of Cato the Elder with his hateful "Delenda Caratago"; this guy changed it into: "Delenda Germania". I'm hereby requesting that such useless posts be deleted with EXTREME prejudice. Screw this self-righteousness. Flamarande (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which specific diff or diffs are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This one and this one . Let me point out that if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable already. Flamarande (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think he's expressing some widely-held sentiments/frustrations as regards the trial of this alleged former Nazi. I also don't think that "the Germans" refers to all Germans, merely the politicians. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If he is frustrated with this particular case he is free to debate it in a forum outside Misplaced Pages. THIS isn't the proper place for his ravings. By the way, he uses the term 'Germany' and that clearly means the entire nation. Flamarande (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that he's gone a bit overboard, even if I share his view of that show-trial. He's interposing his opinion when he should be looking for reasoned citations. I dispute that he's smearing all Germans. He's saying "Germany" and "Germans" are doing this-or-that, the way someone might say the USA is doing this-or-that. For example, America killed Osama bin Laden. I'm American, and I didn't personally kill him, nor was I asked permission for someone else to do it. But it's still convenient to say "America did it". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Flamarande, I have no comment on the IP's posts, which I haven't read, but I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the ref-desk has a specifically anti-german bias. ("...if this was any other nation...") Of all the nations in the world, why would we be specifically anti-German? APL (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawman. Flamarande made no such suggestion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Flamarande did say that "if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable." I sincerely also don't see that Germany is being bashed harder on the RD. Although it's difficult not to find any questions about Hitler/WWII on the RD, most contributions are objective comments. Regarding 88. I think that he could have avoided the word 'pathetic' when referring to these recent German trials of alleged formed Nazis, but definitely 88. didn't refer to the whole nation when he said "Germany." That's a common way of saying something. Quest09 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He certainly did. APL (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people would take it (Germany) as a reference to the state of Germany, not the people .. ditto ("America" vs the "Americans") Imgaril (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how 88.8's comments could mean all Germans, don't understand how Flamarande could mean "his poison", when he explicitly says "don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust", and don't think 88.8 " should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems." since here is plenty of reason for disapproving those German trials. Wikiweek (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's soapboxing or soapboxy (or at least 'off topic' enough not be be a valid response) - I actually share a similar viewpoint on the trial whilst generally liking German stuff in general. It's not a suitable comment for these pages whether you agree or not. Clearly this has hit a nerve with Flamarade, and we can all appreciate their objection, but I think they are over-reacting (objectively). I would recommend future posts like the one I linked to above result in a warning about soapboxing, potentially inflammatory statements, and sticking to fact based or referenceable statements in general, but no more. The editor's short edit history shows they are not using the page exclusively to push a point of view - and has answered sensibly to other questions - so I don't see any more issues.Imgaril (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the accused. So, here my couple of comments:

1. I admit

-that the discussions went off topic. However, if anyone cares to read the thread carefully, he'll see that the discussion went off topic not only due to my comments.

-I know that pathetic is no objective wording, even if it perfectly conceives the right idea. That's a bit overboard, right.

2. Flamarande, for me, gave examples of his sense of believing to be unfairly persecuted. However, there is no evidence of that on the RD and it's not my fault if he's pissed off when he read comments about Germany that do not match his 'views'. He certainly has a problem with taking part in an open discussion.

3. Flamarande's logic is flawed: he said I should bash my own country. He presupposes I was not already doing it, maybe my own country is Germany.

4. Flamarande has no idea what the Godwin's law is, although he linked to it in the discussion. It is not bashing Germany, it is not calling a part of it's society pathetic, not even calling them Nazis would qualify for that.

5. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a problem expressing his opinions on the RD and his political 'views': See here: ] calling certain people 'scum' and that they should be ashamed of themselves. On the top of that he's given his opinion about the London riots. Apparently, freedom of speech only applies to him.

6. It's amazing that he speaks of 'poison' , 'cheap shots' and that others need a shrink. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That should be spelled "its society" (no apostrophe) but otherwise the above is all fair comment. Verdict: innocent. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless he actually meant to say "it is society" (and also "Godwin is law"). ←baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If we call it a day at this point it will have been a potentially valuable learning experience for all concerned, with no real lasting harm done. Unless I made a grammatical or spelling error in which case I'm dead meat.Imgaril (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's (with apostrophe) a day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Geography questions

Looking at the descriptions of categories on Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk I notice none of them mention geography. Since this is a fairly common topic, should it be added to the descriptions one of the categories? Humanities seems logical ("History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society") but I thought I'd check. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many geographical questions have nothing to do with human activities. So RD/M is the place for them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's of little consequence whether Geography questions get asked at Humanities or Miscellaneous. They'll get answered just the same. Even Science would be appropriate for questions regarding physical geography (being a subset of the Earth Sciences/Geology). Political geography (relating to borders, states, or administrative divisions) would work fine at Humanities, as would Human Geography (demographics, populations, etc.). Let people ask whatever question at whatever desk feels natural, and as long as it sorta fits, there's no need to micromanage whether a geography question ends up at Humanities or Miscellaneous. It just doesn't matter that much (if one ended up at Computing, we may want to move it elsewhere, but I rarely see someone get it THAT wrong...) --Jayron32 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would ask a question about digital maps at the Computing desk. Anyway, people mostly ask the question there where he can get better answers, and I don't think it's a huge problem. Quest09 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

people...he? --Belchman (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire point of a "Miscellaneous" category is that if you aren't sure of what category to use, you can put it there. Feel free to avail yourself of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Either that or to ask questions such as "Two homosexuals fondling each ohter". --Belchman (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a university

What was the first time we got one of those "questions" by people who think Misplaced Pages is a university? --Belchman (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What kind of question do you mean? Right now people seem to believe Misplaced Pages is a a forum for literate people. Wikiweek (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We get these bizarre questions periodically. --Belchman (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2006 an Egyptian IP user asked "How can I study theoretical physics in one of the US universities?". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The question cited by Belchman is clearly out of place, but I don't see any problem with the question of the Egyptian IP, which could and indeed was answered. The latter was just asking for references. Wikiweek (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly out of place" may seem harshly stated because without some ignorance on the part of the questioner there would be no question. For this question three responders (ColinFine, Lesgles, Wavelength) both corrected the OP's ignorance of whether Misplaced Pages is a university and helpfully gave much more information. It was just one more job where we had the power to help someone in need. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a permanent link to that question.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the help desk, you see this all the time. Many people don't understand that they are looking at an encyclopedia. They go to Google and type in the name of some university. They click on the Misplaced Pages article. From there, they click on "Help" and assume that they are asking for help from the university. -- kainaw™ 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a link on the front page to Wikiversity. Slightly further up the page is the reference desk link, which states that we "tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects". The Wikiversity site has a "colloquium" page and some help pages, but those might seem less inviting and more oriented towards technical questions (why isn't this user blocked, why aren't more pages in Arabic, etc.) that the ref desks. It's not easy to find out whether Wikiversity is a real university or not. There are far too many pages there which might seem to explain what the site is all about, but don't. For instance I just clicked Help->Wikiversity basic information->About Wikiversity ...er... ->Wikiversity Statistics (is the only option from there) and now I'm being offered links like "Animated growth of Wikiversity projects" and "Alexa traffic rank".  Card Zero  (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Archives: missing links

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives (permanent link here) is missing links to archives after July 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The list has to be hand-edited -- I just now advanced it to September. Looie496 (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it possible and appropriate to add temporarily red links for 12 months at a time?

—Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoop's anal fascination deleted

Deleted vandalism. Honestly... We haven't blocked this idiot yet? -- kainaw™ 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the vandal reverted the deletion and I had to remove it again. -- kainaw™ 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can it be answered in a factual manner by providing a reference to a reliable source? Then it's fine in my book (a lot better than the "is there a god" crap on the Humanities desk right now). I would have thought the Pylorus or something would try to prevent it, but maybe it would give out before the intestine bursts. Anyway, personal attacks are never acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and I strongly caution you for making comments or insinuations about another editor's mental health. Buddy431 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If this were a question from a new or infrequent user, I'd oppose the deletion, but Whoop_Whoop has been asking a rather large number of inane questions lately. Perhaps it could be politely explained to him that the reference desk isn't really for asking a large number of questions that just happened to pop into your head, and that he shouldn't overuse the resource. APL (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If the question had not been censored I would have directed the OP to the article Enema which gives information on effects of over-administration. The likely injury is rupture to the bowel or rectal tissues resulting in internal bleeding, leaving the individual exposed to infection from intestinal bacteria. For people known as Klismaphiliacs the censored question is relevant and serious. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And next time we are asked if Uranus smells bad, you can provide a good answer as well. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from answering on the user's talk page. -- kainaw™ 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The extremes of pressure and temperature (see profile) in the atmosphere of Uranus far exceed the operational parameters of human olfactory sense, which would inhibit a real-time smell survey of the planet. I speculate that if an atmospheric sample were obtained by a probe and brought to normal pressure and temperature, the content of methane, ammonia, sulphides and trace hydrocarbons would give a smell similar to diesel engine exhaust but I cannot give a better answer than that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You could also just ignore questions that you don't like. --Belchman (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has an article about Uranus. Next question please. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think kainaw should be blocked for a few days so that he has time to think why arbitrary deletion based solely on personal taste and aggressive insults are frowned upon here in Misplaced Pages. --Belchman (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoop knows the score around here. That was not a serious question. Mingmingla (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is to Kainaw's credit that Kainaw retracted a comment on Whoop_whoop_pull_up's page about a hedgehog. However this subsequent post: "Either you agree that you that do comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you are not a user that I would classify as mentally retarded OR you agree that you do not comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you the type of user that I attacked by calling mentally retarded." strikes me as an abusive claim to have an alleged right to explicitly call an OP mentally retarded. We are not here to do that under any circumstances, nor is it our remit to out (make publically known) any closet-non-klismaphiliac. They must be allowed to keep their secret as long as they do not frighten the horses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What does Kainaw's criterion say about ref. deskers diagnosing mental disease? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

To call someone a "retard" is kind of uncivil and childish, but it's not a medical diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mental retardation (see reference) is defined as an axis II disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The user, who has been registered for a year or so, is basically doing a bad imitation of "Light current". In future he should resist lowering himself to that kind of thing. ←baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is another example of "Wikiproject:Babysitter" - where we are supposed to put up with and pander to the slightest whim of immature (acting) editors. ie I mean "whoopwhoop". This isn't the purpose of wikipedia or these desks. I see that Kainaw has got fed up of it and breached wp:civil and lost his temper. There's an obvious explanation for this - the editor "whoopwhoop" is playing games and wasting peoples time. Can we have a rule or guideline that penalises that sort of behaviour too . Yes I see WP:AGF, I also see WP:DUCK too - I don't need a degree in sociology to spot very immature behaviour that is ultimately disruptive. Imgaril (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If a user's name does not violate WP:UN then it is courteous to cite them correctly, not least to user Whoop whoop pull up. If you seek a new system of penalties for OP's to the ref. desks then possible objections are 1) the ref. desks serve best as a low-threshold service to inexperienced users who shall be treated with tolerance as WP:NEWBIES, and 2) we all volunteer our time and so can't be forced to pander to the whim of an immature (acting) editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain who you mean when you say "an immature (acting) editor", and why you link to that ref desk discussion from last year? Fram (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)