Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 15 August 2012

• 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.

Removing dangerous questions

The idea of a straw poll was rejected above, so I propose this change to WP:RDG outright:

We should remove questions about making nuclear weapons, producing thermal neutrons, making fissile material and enriching it, making chemical or biological weapons, making high explosives, making addictive and dangerous drugs of abuse, and making automatic weapons. Npmay (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Those are encyclopedic topics. It is the request for risky speccific individual how-to advice that is problematic. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please use common sense in this area? Questions that are clearly inappropriate should be removed from the page, particularly if there are multiple such questions from the same user. If the question appears to have been asked in good faith, a note explaining why this particular question was not suited for the ref-desk can be left on the editor's talkpage. Excessive time should not be spent arguing about the merits of such questions, as this diverts community time and resources both from responding to other questions asked on the reference desk as well as from editing the main portion of the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing more amusing to me than people who know very little about what is and is not sensitive information related to nuclear weapons making things up that sound scary to them. Producing thermal neutrons is not exactly a secret thing — Enrico Fermi was issued a patent for the basic method in 1940! There are patents for enriching uranium, making a nuclear reactor, and separating plutonium from the waste products. Knowing how to do these sorts of things is pretty innocuous — because it's a long way from actually doing any of them. I think as long as nobody is using the Ref Desk to broker centrifuge sales then we're in the clear as far as the NPT is concerned. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Although if you are reading about those things from an Apple device, you may be violating a EULA agreement. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a delicious idea. What if the North Korean nuclear tests fizzled because they got their nuclear weapons design information off of Misplaced Pages? --Mr.98 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure Microsoft products have the same requirement in their EULA. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's just export control boilerplate. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So do we ban questions about Iran's nuclear weapons program? Or the Manhattan project? Or nuclear power? (I'm also intrigued why you want to ban questions on automatic weapons but are fine with questions on semi-automatics and other sorts of firearms. Maybe you feel other firearms are so easy to manufacture that a prohibition is unnecessary.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as in the previous discussion, a rigid categorical rule will either be substantially over inclusive, or miss lots of questions that should be removed. The solution is common sense, not WP:CREEP. Monty₈₄₅ 14:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just let the Chinese Government become the World Government and let the entire internet be censored. Spyware issued by the Government must be installed on all computers. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. This whole thread is a misnomer. There are no dangerous questions, period. There are, however, plenty of dangerous answers to questions, and plenty of dangerous statements not associated with any questions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Rule creep. I also do not endorse self-appointed censors deciding what referenced knowledge is too dangerous to appear in the ref desk responses, in an encyclopedia which maintains a "how-to" article on suicide methods through 9 deletion discussions, largely on grounds that WP:NOTCENSORED overrules the fears that knowledge might lead to something bad happening. Misplaced Pages also has detailed "how-to" information on the best triggering methods in the Car bomb article. which has been around for 9 years, and apparently not censored of how-to's. A question "How are car bombs typically triggered today?" could be answered by directing the questioner to the relevant article, but would be removed under the proposal on grounds that car bombs are dangerous and illegal. A question that indicates criminal intent (such as "What poison could I put in the Boss's coffee that he would not detect until it was too late,"' or "What would be the most sure and swift and painless way for me to commit suicide" could and should be removed. Edison (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, common sense should be used in this area. Good-faith questions should receive responses where these can be given without creating the impression that Misplaced Pages is indifferent to public safety. Trollish questions and questions that appear to have been asked to have been provocative and test limits should be stricken. Admittedly there will be borderline cases, but good sense should be sufficient to address 90+% of them. Continued bickering about these sorts of issues is unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time <leader> visited <place>?_visited_<place>?-2012-08-01T20:22:00.000Z">

I have just removed two of these from the Humanities desk, and I'm going to be silently removing any more that I come across. This is Ref-desk abuse. Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)_visited_<place>?"> _visited_<place>?">

I think it's worth noting that both questions were more than <arbitrary leader> / <arbitrary place>, but rather <leader of colonial power> / <former colony>. That is, the topics themselves are not inherently ref desk abuse. — Lomn 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit of a shame to systematically remove questions like this. Generally, I'm perfectly happy for anyone to go ahead and remove stuff any time they feel like it, but I don't see what the benefit is going to be in this case. No-one forces us to answer, or even look at, questions, and so I'd say the best defence against boring and/or repetitive questions would be to ignore them. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What is abuse is that the editor has been asking questions of that form over and over again for weeks. One or two is no problem, but it is ridiculous to expect us to handle an endless series of them. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this person should be doing their own google searches, but why can't you just ignore the questions? You don't have to answer them and if other editors do want to, why not just let them? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

" in headings cause linking problems. The symbols "( )" do not cause technical problems. The symbols "{ }" probably cause technical problems. I am not sure about the technical suitability of underscores—"_ _"—as enclosing symbols in headings. See User:Wavelength/About Misplaced Pages/Link test page one and User:Wavelength/About Misplaced Pages/Link test page two.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)]

Yeah, I noticed. I won't do it that way again :-). Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it would be more efficient to just research a particular guy's schedule via Google than to try and make others here do that same work. Although I do wonder... When was the last time the chairman of the 2012 Olympics took his family to Newcastle? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Many questions asked at the refdesk could be answered with Just Google It. Is that the standard for actually removing questions now? Monty₈₄₅ 14:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Without regard for whether or not the questions should or should not have been removed, the asker has been here for years asking the same sorts of questions. He seems to generally be interested in former colonial powers in general, and often asks a streak of closely related questions regarding former colonial posessions and their current relationship to their former colonizers. For example, in rapid succession we might get a series of questions which asks about immigration from the DRC to Belgium, and from Indonesia to the Netherlands, and from Algeria to France, and from Brazil to Portugal. Wait two weeks, and then we get a series of questions on Belgian-based corportations who have employees in the DRC, and Netherlands-based corporations who have employees in Indonesia, and French-based corporations who have employees in Algeria, etc. Then wait two weeks and we get the next batch of questions. Given the narrow focus of the questions, and the similarity each time, I think it is a clear case of Hanlon's razor if I ever saw one: The OP of all of these questions isn't trolling: They are genuinely interested in the lasting effects on colonialism in various places; but lack the wherewithal, ability, or knowhow to any serious research in the field: instead they come here and ask these redundant questions. Not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is, except to note that they've been here a long time, and that I usually don't have any problem answering their questions politely when I can find the answer. Perhaps that is the best way to handle it. --Jayron32 20:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one editor I haven't followed very well but am I right they are the same people always asking stuff like how many Indonesias there are in the Netherlands and other random demographics stuff like Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 28#French cities with significant population Muslim African francophonie arab? If so, while I agree I haven't seen much evidence they're a troll, they do seem to lack the ability not only to do any research, but seemingly to understand and read the articles and stuff that has been told them before. E.g. as you and me pointed Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 3#Largest Muslim population in Europe 2, it's not entirely clear how much they absorbed from many of the other answers. (I remember the Indonesian part a lot because I also remember AnonMoos mentioning lots of times about how there are many Moluccans in the Netherlands.) While I'm not saying we should remove their questions, I do understand the temptation when it's not clear if there's much point trying to answer. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this removal, but please provide the diffs for your actions, Looie, so they can be traced without days of research. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)_visited_<place>?"> _visited_<place>?">

Closed request for legal advice

Closed request for legal advice: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#After_over_4_years.2C_what_happens_to_my_unpaid_Softbank_cellphone_bill.3F μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To bring up a point made not two minutes later: "please provide the diffs for your actions ... so they can be traced without days of research." (emph added) -- 71.35.119.233 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the edit in this case was not deleted, a direct link to the still existing section was more helpful, and was provided. If you need help learning how to use wikipedia, follow (i.e., move your cursor to and click on) this link: Help. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet the provided link will shortly become unusable, either because someone else has otherwise modified the section or because of the normal archiving process. The request for a true diff is not unreasonable, and the condescension unwarranted. That said, I concur with the closure. — Lomn 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

closed req for med adv

insofar as this is not a joke it's a req for med advice: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=505842070&oldid=505837815 μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a completely legitimate question, Medeis. "Is the botulism in spoiled food the same as the botox they inject into people's faces". Only you would interpret that as a request for medical advice. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note the use of the word "theory" in "note that the question is not SHOULD i do that but can i, in theory, do that?" That's appallingly punctuated, but not a request for medical advice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted this question in much the same way as Someguy. I don't think this is a request for medical advice, though the repeated use of the first person singular makes me cringe. 112.215.36.184 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the guy does clarify that he is speaking only theoretically. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed request for debate/opinion

This thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&pe=1&#Why_is_it_Less_Acceptable_for_Guys_to_Call_Other_Straight_Guys_Handsome_than_it_is_for_Women_to_call_Other_Straight_Women_Pretty.3F is an outright request for subjective opinion and debate. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Would you consider Why don't all gay men just come out of the closet? as a request for opinion? The fact that many refdeskers feel compelled to answer with opinions, original research or unreferenced claims is irrelevant. Questions such as the one you just hatted are perfectly appropriate for the reference desk. There are thousands of completely serious peer-reviewed articles that discuss societal concepts of masculinity. Just because these are "soft" sciences with no hard facts doesn't mean they are off limits for the reference desk. A true reference desk would help you find sociology texts just as well as it would help you find chemistry texts. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. One of the problems with social science questions that are inappropriate, such as the example Medeis shows, is that to indicate the question is misformed, and misinformed, will mean giving a tutorial in Sociology 1000; and, involve correcting the OP about their failure to use correct or current terminology. The analysis of society and culture procedes on top of a theoretical basis on top of methodologies, just as much as the analysis of engineering systems procedes on top of a model on top of mathematical systems. Often OP asks a question that lies outside of:

1. Accepted or acceptable problems in a social science, "Why don't straight men compliment each other?" rather than "What is a straight man?"
2. Theoretical constructs that are grossly out of date in their context, or constructs that aren't accepted at all.
3. Questions lying outside of methodological demonstration in a social science sense: "Why don't any straight men compliment each other," versus, "Why are some "men who have sex with men" in Australia viewed as "straight"?"

Yet reference deskers feel obliged to try to answer. One solution would be to simply say, "Your question has not been answered by , nor is it a problem considered worth answering and/or capable of being answered. To learn more look at , and ." ? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, except the question was fine and answerable, even if the language used wasn't all jargony and didn't show a specific understanding of the conventions of sociology to answer it, it was still not hard to provide real references, and give leads to further research, which I did rather easily already. --Jayron32 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I extended your scholar search into the standard scholarly terms for "embodied" issues, and it came up blank for male-male body compliments. I think you're being mislead in your search in relation to non-embodied male-male compliments, such as "Nice google search answering OP's question, Jayron32." Embodiment makes the search results go straight into queer studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the specific work I found in the Google search, deals with all sorts of compliments, including ones about appearence. --Jayron32 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments by User:KoshVorlon

User:KoshVorlon is deleting my comments saying that they're uncivil. 112.215.36.175 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civil. Even if my comments were uncivil, which they are most certainly not since they're not even about another editor, there is no permission given by that policy to summarily remove them. 112.215.36.175 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the removal. — Lomn 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RemoveCivil permitts the removal of uncvil comments. My removal wasn't personal or anything.

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

She's dead, Jim

The gorilla died four years ago. What sort of good faith are we supposed to assume would prevent a zookeeper from noticing her prize exhibit was four years deceased? And why would we restore such trolling when the poster who created it deleted it himself? μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Being wrong, or confused, or misinformed, or committing a grammatical error, or whatever, is not sufficient evidence of trolling in and of itself. (Neither is removing one's own question.) Letting such a question stand was not going to do any harm. As usual you're a little quick on the gun. You really need to re-read WP:AGF. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally lost here. Are you saying you redeleted a question the OP first deleted ? You really need to start at the beginning so we can understand the sequence of events. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't remove the user's question, I hatted it and pointed out the fact that Jenny (gorilla) died in 2008. It is the poster himself who deleted his own, dare I say, 'nonsense'? In any case, you are right that no one was going to lose his life over this. But I am not aware of any good reason to encourage trolling either. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, the poster implied he was from the Dallas Zoo and wanted to list information about their exhibits, including the Gorilla Jenny. The problem is that Jenny has been dead for four years, and anyone associated with the zoo would obviously know that. I hatted the discussion and pointed out that it was dubious. 98 unhatted it and chided me to show good faith. I thought that was an absurd recommendation. And the original poster himself deleted his comment. Then another user told the original poster not to delete other people's comments. Given this was his own hoax question he deleted, I redeleted it. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"We would like to add details about certain animals...one of our gorillas, Jenny, is actually the world's oldest gorilla." Really? One word in the wrong tense is proof of trolling? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The entire point is that it wasn't clear it was trolling. I don't know what it was. But you had insufficient evidence to assume it. I saw no reason to hat it. Perhaps if it had not been labeling trolling the OP would have come back and explained themselves — that they had made a typo, that they had been confused, who knows. No way to know now.

In general, I think the Ref Desk needs a lot less of your premature hatting of things. You've had a large number of your decisions reversed and contested by others. That's good evidence, perhaps, that your assistance in that area is not actually needed. When your attempt to stifle discussions and enforce your idea of the rules causes more disruption than the alleged violations, it's a good time perhaps to take a break. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note it's not even as simple as Someguy1221 suggested . Just substituting 'is' with 'was' (i.e. 'For the Western Lowland Gorilla, we would like to add the fact that one of our gorillas, Jenny, was actually the world's oldest gorilla) may lead one to believe the gorilla's lifespan was later exceeded which I presume is not the case. A better formulation would be something like 'the longest known lifespan of any gorilla' or 'oldest known gorilla ever' (similar to the formulation used in List of the verified oldest people). In fact even these formulations would have to be carefully worded since we evidentally don't know the precise age of the gorilla, just that the minimum possible age is longer then any other known age. In other words, it hardly seems surprising if the OP choose a poor wording. To be fair, when I initially read what μηδείς pointed out (only after reading what μηδείς said obviously), I too made the same mistake of not appreciating it may be a simple grammatical error. So I'm not saying μηδείς was wrong for not realising it may have been a simple grammatical error rather then trolling. But the fact it's so easy to make mistakes of this sort does reaffirm why people shouldn't be too hasty in closing discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. This clearly wasn't trolling. Somebody at the zoo wanted to help add information, and they were a little confused. (Yes, it probably belonged on the Help Desk.) I'm sure the original poster deleted it because they came to realize they were in the wrong place. (Or perhaps because after being scolded against "advertising", they decided they weren't interested in helping out after all, which is too bad. AGF, and all that.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried to post this 3 hours ago but my internet went down (again). Anyway, you are misreading the question. Just because she is dead doesn't mean she isn't the longest living gorilla on record. The person with the longest confirmed human life span is also dead, but that doesn't somehow invalidate the facts. I don't see any indication of trolling in that post at all, just a naive person who wants to fill Misplaced Pages articles with references to a zoo. A link to WP:ADVERT is really the only response necessary. 2002:5CE9:401A:0:0:0:5CE9:401A (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, whoever wishes to do so should simply call the Dallas Zoo, say they are from wikipedia, and want to help. I am quite sure an institution like that must find English verb tenses and the inteweb quite confusing, and no one will get laughed at for volunteering. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I think there are plenty of zoos whose volunteers are not all native English speakers. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

closed req for med adv

Hatting this seems sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science&pe=1&#What_is_happening_to_me.3F μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make it so, before people advise psychotherapy, sleep studies, electrocardiograms, or various herbal teas and homeopathic nostrums. Edison (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone has removed it. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds suspiciously like one of Edgar Allen Poe's stories. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-opened hat on RD:S

I have reverted the hatting of the repair shop shenanigans by Medeis. While I generally concur with Vespine and Medeis that the thread is opinion-heavy, I don't think it's substantially more so than the de facto community standards for acceptability, and comments such as "go to another shop" are (while not referenced) perfectly reasonable responses such as would be provided by a brick-and-mortar Ref Desk. On the other hand, it's yet another rambling digression by our friend from Manhattan KS, so maybe a discussion about preemptive closures on those grounds is due. — Lomn 12:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, as it meanders into legalistic issues, i.e. wondering if some garage is engaged in some kind of illegal practice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a waste of space and time. You should have left it hatted. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Looie and Medeis. There's a valid question in there somewhere about how the wiring could have done that to his car, but most of that question is just paranoia. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you will, allow me to flip that around: most of the original post is just paranoia, but there's a valid question in there about how the observed effect could happen. I note that the responses posted generally skipped the anecdotes to answer the more objective questions (Do service centers sabotage cars? No. Are mechanics paid by commission? Repair rates are standardized by the job in question. Does the car being a PT cruiser have any bearing? The cruiser is noted for electrical issues. And by the way, you don't have to do repairs where you bought the car). It'd be nice if references for the above had been provided initially, but they're all referable (save maybe sabotage, which I would consider sufficiently self-evident as to not need the reference anyway). — Lomn 17:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As Medeis has re-closed the question, noting it as "explicit request for opinion/anecdote", I think it worth asking: there is an explicit request for anecdotes. There are also, as I've noted, multiple questions which are not. Is that sort of policy -- one wrong step undoing a number of reasonable ones -- one we want to encourage broadly? — Lomn 17:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing if it's a silly question. It's another when you get into borderline legal issues and talk of crime and violence. The user is obviously aware he's testing our boundaries with his explicit request for opinion, and his using people's first names to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks when he should be asking some sort of science question. He's quite free to post an actual scientific question if he's got one. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This: "If anyone would like to chime in their thoughts, then please do. How likely is this new problem (which occurred at the service lot, of all places) an act of sabotage?" is either a request for an unserious chat or a serious opinion on a criminal act. Either way it's verboten. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's separate those two out. I have no argument with your characterization of the "chime in" sentence (but I note that the RD is intelligent enough to simply choose not to engage that portion, too). But "how likely is this new problem an act of sabotage?" is simple to answer. The answer is "vanishingly unlikely". I fail to see how this in any way creates friction with our policy on legal matters. — Lomn 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the reference desk's job to examine every manure pile to see what pearl we can extract from it. Although I am quite sure the IP is enjoying the attention this is a waste of time and space, discussing it any further even moreso. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't see why we need to be protected from doing it either. If someone wants to sort it out, let them; I've seen plenty of wastes of time and space here, but it should be open for people to chose to do so. Nobody is forced to read it, nobody is forced to answer it; and since nobody is printing this all out, the space doesn't cost anything to waste. I don't see that drastic a difference between this and asking if buying a laptop with such and such screen for an extra $200 is a rip off (save the edge of paranoia) and we allow those questions to stand. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he update the question? I don't remember it reading like that last time I looked at it...I change my opinion, it just seems like rambling now (supposing it was changed.) Maybe if he edited it. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No. See . The only modification was the addition of two further level subheadings and a reply , later signed . Are you perhaps thinking of their earlier question on their car before they decide to have the PCM replaced elsewhere a week or two back? Or one of the other questions they've asked on their car a few? months ago? As even Lomn mentioned the style of question is fairly normal for that contributor. Whether it's problems with their car; ways to make money/find a job/emigrate/what to do after uni with a big student loan/disability/braces/people holding grudges etc; or random other stuff like what to do about a mobile phone bill from Japan, or what to do after having words with someone from a petrol station, or how to hide their IP, or random stuff to do with IRC, and a lot more questions I can't be bothered remembering. (Probably should mention them twice asking about getting braces in India, only to deny it was them the second time.) Their style is fairly distinctive often starting off either with some random problem they're having in the real world or something they heard from some random place, usually particularly when it's a problem with the real world with a fair amount of apparent paranoia or strange hasty conclusions drawn from slim evidence. At least they seem to have given up on their Japanese bidet crusade.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of an older question. But, wow! I've noticed many of the questions you mention, they're all from the same source? Yeah, they should definitely just get taken down unless they're legitimate, I can understand a random poorly asked question, but that just seems disruptive. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not accusing them of trolling or generally being intentionally disruptive. They've been consistent enough in the 2-3? years they've been here that I strongly suspect they're not trolling or trying to be disruptive, it's just the way they are. (And particularly since their IP stopped changing much, as they've helpfully told us a lot of times, it's even easier to follow them.) In fact plenty of their questions have revealed it isn't exactly unique to the RD, e.g. their recent comment on 'mass-pinging IRC'. They do have the occasional problem of asking again when they aren't satisfied with the answer (asking 3? times in a row about the Google gadget thing is a clear example of that) and sometimes pretending it wasn't them when challenged which could be seen as unacceptable disruption. However unlike with a genuine trolls, I've never felt the need to block them being that important. While with a lot of their questions (particularly those involving making money), I'm not sure whether anything we say is going to make much difference, I do suspect they're somewhat interested in the answers, unlike with a troll who is generally more interested in the response. Also many of their questions are 'strange' (for the lack of a better term) enough that you don't actually have to be familiar with the RD to realise what you're dealing with, unlike with a sneaky troll who's trolling may not be obvious unless you're familiar with their history. (The example which started this thread or the joining Free Syrian Army are prime examples here.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

close req for copyright vio

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&pe=1&#Coast_to_coast μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good closure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we weren't allowed to give legal opinions. The notion of copyright doesn't exist in all jurisdictions, and it's hardly our place to decide what's legal or not for the person asking the question (or indeed, that we never allow questions about activities that are illegal in some, or even most jurisdictions). No, I'm not completely serious, but I think it does raise some good questions about the intersection of different policies within Misplaced Pages in general and the Reference Desk in particular. Buddy431 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ref Desk is dumbing down, the regulars here should post problems

The Ref Desk is on a downward spiral, the more trivial questions are posted the less inclined people who have interesting questions want to post here, and that then leads to more and more discussions on this talk page about how to deal with problematic questions. To get out of this downward spiral, we need to post questions for the other regulars. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the sole purpose of the reference desk is to provide answers to those who need them, not to encourage and support an interesting forum. However, I would be happy to be told that's not the case! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I contribute questions on the occasion that I have them. i don't think soliciting questions or racking our brains for them will get us better ones. I have seen a lot of bad questions by people who post them in any quantity. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A downward spiral? No way. All learning is good. Someone who asks what Count Iblis thinks is a dumb question today will hopefully ask a more sophisticated one tomorrow. All learners have to start somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only the OPs whose questions get dumber each time that are a problem, but the refdesk has always had those, and always dealt with them. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ref Desk has too many regulars answering questions relative to the number of questions asked, which leads to the Ref Desk becoming a forum, where each qustions kicks of a discussion among the regulars. Given that we are already a de-facto discussion forum, we should make this a higher quality discussion forum that serves more as the way the Ref Desk was intended. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your train of thought lost me in the last few words there, but in support of the rest, I'm now going to go ask a question at the Science refdesk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the middle of summer, and most schools are not in full swing. It'll pick up come September. It always does. Mingmingla (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to mildly object to the Northern Hemisphere-centric perspective there (I'm in Australia), but I take your point ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See "Eternal September", to which the following four pages link: Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 52, Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 76, Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 79, Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 86.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is supposedly losing contributors, and since a too-anal application of the "not a forum" rule is only likely to deter people from this particular corner of Misplaced Pages, the rule should IMO be interpreted generously. 86.179.3.32 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

subthread proving the hypothesis

It always has seemed irrational to me that you upsidedowners don't simply have cold summers and hot winters instead of at the wrong time of the year. Next your clocks will be running backwards and your toilets emptying with one flush. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that our toilets empty in your direction. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Just be happy if your toliets empty

Here's a question for the desk: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could outsource the job? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The woodchuck wouldn't chuck wood at all, if the wood chucking process has been outsourced. For a more detailed analysis, you really do need to specify whether it has been sourced to a domestic wood-chucking enterprise, independent subcontractors, or it has been moved overseas; and also to what extent, if any, the woodchuck has retained executive and quality control powers over the chucking processes.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Most likely it would be in a branch office, with a trunk line for frequent rings. And don't overlook the need for training programs, service level contracts, and confidentiality agreements. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He might not be chucking wood, but he would be having wood chucked. Unfortunately the last six woodchucks I have seen have been ex-woodchucks, a population boom evened out by hrududu. μηδείς (talk)

Quite. "Evened out" as in "flattened". Some woodchucks chuck wood. Others chuck it in. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

someone please close the race baiting thread

Would someone please close http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#U.S._Census_Bureau_Classification_of_Asian ? ObsidianSoul's decision to start calling people racist and throw around terms like "nigger" and accuse people of calling people "yellow" is disgusting and cannot be expected to be responded to civilly. I refuse to have family and lovers and self sop insulted. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support collapsing everything below AnonMoos's answer. The question itself is fine. Or Obsidian et. al can have a semantic discussion on the language desk, if they want. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did that (before reading this, actually). Looie496 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't object to the closing or entirely agree with OS's responses I would argue part of his responses is clealrly on topic and not just a matter of semantics. The fact is, the idea all SEAsians are very close to Easr Asians and far from South Asians is higly questionable. Given that, its hardly surprising the census bureau would't want to use seperations that make little sense. In fact In fact even the difference between South Asian and East Asian is not always as clear cut at the op seems to think. As for the racism flak, while its arguably off topic, pointing out a term is often seen as offensive isn't ecactly unusual on the RD and while perhaps OS did not approach the matter very well, I don't think the followups helped. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)e

It wasn't a race baiting thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, I'm not sure how to put this, so I'll just do it plainly and bluntly: I am disgusted by this thread, too, but primarily at your contributions to it. ObsidianSoul's digressions may have been misplaced, but they started out sensitive and well-intentioned. It was you who jumped down his throat almost immediately with a "listen, buddy" and a false analogy, and then started berating him (with a nice, gratuitous "fuck you" thrown in for good measure). Your facts may be right ("Oriental" is not and is not typically used nearly as offensively as "nigger") but your attitude, your tone, and your holier-than-thou sanctimony are all wrong. Please, please, please let's (all of us) try to just answer questions, not call the kettle black as we hijack threads. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. I would have preferred simply to delete the insults and personal accusations rather than respond to them. I have done it before. But I have been told not to shut down threads or hat comments. Shall I just respond in kind then when such occurs in the future, and hope others will take the appropriate action, as Looie (my sincere thanks) did in this case? Having someone accuse me of being the sort of person who calls people nigger because that someone wants to argue that the word oriental (literally, "Eastern") is a deliberate insult is beyond taking. Why were such comments not deleted or hatted before I saw them? I have lovers and blood family members who are black, and I do not accept such accusations lightly. I have also had close oriental friends who have cried in my arms over the Tiananmen square crackkdown as it happened and on other occasions. No one should have to suffer such provocations; there is an explicit refdesk rule against it. Nowhere did I or anyone else try to insult Obsidian Soul, who came out with deliberate provocations and personal accusations of racism. and intentionally began a contentious name-calling debate. That is against the rules, somewhere, I think. Yes, I told him to fuck himself. No, I did not call him a yellow-skinned whatever, nor did anyone else. I'll take your criticism as meaning that in the future I should delete such comments, as has been my preference, rather than respond to them on an equal level. I'll take your expectation that I behave better than other editors as a high personal compliment. But I have no intention of continuing to participate in this conversation or accept the notion that I should quietly suffer intentional racist attacks and moral insults. And neither am I expecting anyone to justify their actions or opinions in response to my crie du coeur here. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like hat, delete, and respond are your only three options. I commend to you a fourth: ignore.

I didn't see Obsidian Soul do anything like what you're accusing him of until after you'd completely unnecessarily escalated the argument.

—Steve Summit (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the arguably tangential nature of the subject matter. The issue was that both Medeis and Obsidan made it personal by bringing their own ethnicities into it. If they'd both assumed mutual good faith and argued their points without imagining personal attacks, there wouldn't be anything wrong.112.215.36.171 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

keeping things interesting

There's a concern raised just above that the reference desk is "dumbing down", that there aren't as many good questions any more. I don't know if that's true (I don't personally find as many questions to answer, but I don't look as hard, either), but if it is true, it's reasonable to ask why that's happening and what we can do about it.

Once upon a time, at least, the Misplaced Pages Reference Desks had a reputation (both within Misplaced Pages, and out on the intertubes) as a place where you could ask just about anything, and get an erudite and decently-researched answer if there was possibly one to be had. A lot like The Straight Dope, but with the answerers pretending to be reference librarians instead of a wise guy.

What would our overall reputation be today? Still not a bad place to ask a question and get an answer, but it's more and more colored by two trends that have been growing for some time: (1) You're quite likely to get criticized or have your question hatted or deleted if it doesn't follow a mixture of written and unwritten rules about what is and isn't permitted, and (2) You might have to put up with copious quantities of questionably-relevant banter and in-jokery (and bickering) by the "regulars". I worry, too, that we might not only be discouraging the people with real questions, but encouraging the trolls, with our too-predictable stuffy responses to Questions We Don't Like. "Hey, let's troll the fuck out of the Reference Desks." ("LOL angsty grownups".) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify when "once upon a time" was?

I just browsed the archive for August, 2009, and then compared it to the current state of the boards. The result of this experiment was ... I dunno. Seems answerers back then (or should I say: at that point in time) were more conscientious about including a reference when replying. There was a certain amount of joking and some bickering. Nothing was hatted, but nothing needed hatting. In comparison, the desks at the moment ... don't seem particularly stuffy either. Possibly I am being wilfully blind (more likely I am being unobservant): I see a lot of perfectly reasonable questions being given perfectly reasonable answers in a calm and helpful manner. That is the main impression I get of the state of the reference desks today. On the other hand, everything is in a steady decline which began earlier than 63 BC, as is well known.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant discussion from 2009 here. I've noticed this too, but I don't think the issue is the questions. In the past, more people seemed to like giving long, researched answers - even to questions which asked very simple and obvious things, or things which could be considered slightly trollish. People seemed to pride themselves on producing a quality answer to even the most ludicrous and frivolous question. While this still happens of course and there are some fantastic answers being given every day, there has been an increase in snap "google it" type responses and a general lack of good faith being assumed all around. As is said above, questions today have a much higher chance of being removed or collapsed, endlessly argued about, and the questioner basically chased off the desk. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there were ever any good old days, but the current state of the Ref Desk is not much to be proud of. Too much biting, too much blathering, too much punning, too many baseless opinions, too much trolling, too much bureaucratizing for the sake of it. It's dispiriting but I see no real push to improve it, just occasional posts here that get no result whatsoever. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the Census question seems reasonable. If we hat or delete the nonsense that is patently not related to the question, stick to the answer, maybe (naive of me to assume, I know) the users who add that kind of crap will slowly get the point. Answer the question, or leave it alone. Mingmingla (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To you nitpickers, yes, we should still not have opinion requests, medical or legal advice. But other than that, answer the question, or leave it alone. Mingmingla (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much about what sorts of questions we "should" get. People will ask whatever they damn well like, and we have no say in that. It's how we deal with the questions we do get. In particular, it's how we deal with the types of questions we've long pretended we don't answer. There's wording at the top which goes "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events" (my bolding). Not "may not answer", but the unequivocal "does not answer". That is, our own rules prevent us from engaging with such questions AT ALL, and current practice would require them to be immediately hatted or removed altogether. To impose other rules (such as your "Answer the question or leave it alone") on these sorts of questions is like requiring people who are in the act of holding up a bank to still hold the door open for any little old ladies who are wanting to enter or leave, and as long as the robbers do that, we'll just conveniently close our eyes to the fact that there's a hold-up going on.

If we're actually happy to answer opinion questions, we should remove the misleading wording at the top, which is honoured far more in the breach than the observance, and develop some sorts of protocols about how we answer them. But if we're not happy to answer them, then we should stop answering them. Either way, let us have no more of this "We say we don't but we actually do" bullshit.

And by the way, it is most certainly not being a nitpicker to focus on this issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well what about the thread referenced below, about moving to Canada? Some will say it was asking for opinions, but the only problem there was people answering with opinions. What was not objective about my own responses? (And yes, I was well aware of the jingoistic attitudes of some of our editors, so I did have that in mind) You don't have to offer an opinion and never should. If the question is blatantly asking for opinion ("whose butt is hotter, J.Lo or QE2?") or blatant trolling ("Why are teh black so fucken stoopid?"), that's easy to deal with. But in most cases, there actually is a way to offer up some objective (and linked-to-source, which many here seem to overlook) information to let the OP decide on their own. Remember that please, LET THE OP DECIDE ON THEIR OWN. IMO it is the verbally diarrhoeic responders who simply must see their own sig regardless of content provided who pose the problem here. And since we can't control the original posters, maybe we could all spend a little more time on self-restraint? </rant> Franamax (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack said, "People will ask whatever they like, and we have no say in that", and Franamax added, "we can't control the original posters", but my point in starting this thread is precisely that we do have some say. It's indirect and far from absolute, but the overall tone we set by the totality of our answers (and metadiscussion) is what selects for the posters who will ask the next questions. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But another thing we can't control is the maturity and/or restraint of the responders here. It's taken how many years now to beat Bugs into shape after he washed up here as a noticeboard refugee, and he's still just barely on the leash. And now we have Medeis partying out, casting their own personal interpretation onto every single word and making sure the entire world knows about what Medeis thinks. And StuRat carrying on as usual, giving opinions about absolutely everything in the universe, such as how your auto mechanic is going to beat you up if you look at him wrong. Would naming names like I just did help to improve the situation? I dunno. But to keep naming names, I think we did have a "golden age" for a while, when TenOfAllTrades, SteveBaker, medical.geneticist, D. Rosenbach (as well as the surviving regulars who keep providing top-notch well-thought and referenced content) and more names I've undoubtedly forgotten would offer up essay-quality answers that were just a joy to come here and read. But excellence moves upwards and mediocrity remains, or does it's best to drag excellence down to it's own level of mediocrity. I personally found that after I took "the pledge" of trying to source all my answers that I had much less to say. And even if it might (unlikely) result in questions sitting there for an extra ten minutes, I think the answer to your OP is that everyone should be concentrating on quality not quantity. I'm sure I sound like a broken record by now, but too many people here focus on seeing their sig show up as soon as possible, as often as possible, as opposed to taking pride in what they put in before the signoff. That has always been a problem at the Desks, but maybe is mounting lately. Franamax (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well put. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the way you singled a few editors out for special negative mention. That's about as provocative as you can get. But I do agree there is a lot of knee-jerk egoistic stuff going on lately. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 13:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Jack, I don't like myself singling out editors either, and I recognize it's quite provocative. But I don't think any of those three will feel blind-sided by what I've said here, as I've said it before (as have others). And ya know, I've gone much further in singling out editors for special attention here on the desks and they are gone now - which I'm not chuffed about, but it needed to be done. To be clear, I'm not suggesting block/bans for anyone present just now, the special attention was for special disruption. But we very much (IMO) need to take personal responsibility for each and all of our posts. I'll wear my comments above because I genuinely mean them. And I'll accept criticism of my own posts too and keep trying to get better. When (if) I post a first response on the Desks themselves though, me, I think the only standard is as close to excellence as I can get. And I will continue to believe that we all should be doing that, and if I'm going to criticize people, better here than on the desks themselves. Franamax (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair call. I agree 100% with your philosophy "the only standard is as close to excellence as I can get". Unfortunately, a lot of people equate "whatever I think" with "an excellent answer". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Brief announcement: More opportunities for you to access free research databases

The quest for get Misplaced Pages editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Misplaced Pages Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed uncivil comment

I removed this edit. It was unnecessarily uncivil and unhelpful. I have informed User:Reisio. This kind of thing is totally unnecessary. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. --Tango (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 98. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Racist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that isn't really helpful, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I could have used stronger words than that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who is looking for an Arab web hosting service has been pushing a rather extreme pro-Zionist point of view in other places, so there is certainly some weirdness here, which some editors have picked up on. But it would be best if the snarkiness would stop. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish people, if they didn't want to answer a question, would just keep their traps shut. Insulting posters is not helpful to anybody. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wish people, if they wanted to pat on the head every person who is clearly wasting not only their own time but lots of other people's, would not freak out over a little joke. In real life he would have known he was being silly by the expressions on our faces, but this is a text medium and such subtleties are harder to pull off. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And some more

Seriously, what's wrong with you people? OK, it's a homework question. So just say, "this looks like homework" like 67... did. Don't say "no." If you can't be bothered to do that, then just don't answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Newton's Xth Law applies here. I think those terse responses were understandable reactions to being given an order, rather than a request. The question was essentially "Show that XYZ is the case". No "please", no courtesy. If the OP can't bother to even slightly reword the question as if they were initiating it, but just parrots the exam paper in blatant defiance of our rule about NOT doing homework for OPs, then they can't really expect a whole lot of courtesy in return.

Btw, I understand your frustration, but if you're wanting to raise the level of general discourse, asking "what's wrong with you people" is not exactly being a role model. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On the latter comment: fair enough. Anyway, I don't know why I allow myself to get so frustrated by this — I'm mostly irritated that I still get irritated. I guess it's because I thought better of this little corner of the Internet? But perhaps that was always a silly thought.--Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a time when I thought people could keep their panties straight and not become censors over a harmless joke not even at their expense, too. Oh, the times! ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that time was called "back in the days of Usenet". You apparently can't even help yourself from making a misogynist gibe right here. The current sites that accommodate your desire to make jokes at the expense of others would likely include 4chan or SomethingAwful, but Misplaced Pages is not one of them. See at WP:NPA. And it's not for you to decide what counts as a "harmless" joke, rather you should let the target of your humour make that decision. So how about if you just confine yourself to making jokes about yourself? Then we can all have a good laugh... Franamax (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving to Canada question

I've hatted some bickering in the Moving to Canada question. I feel that the first response was an unhelpful attack on the OP, and the three other comments (mine included) are better made elsewhere. I should've done it earlier, given the question is a few days old, but comments are still coming in on it. Anyone is welcome to unhat it if they feel my change was inappropriate. Mingmingla (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me I may have misinterpreted the whole thing. My apologies to all the editors involved. The comment the first editor made could be interpreted two ways: one is the sense of "Good Riddance", the other is "get out while you can". I assumed the first. I blame the internet and the inherent difficulty of communicating without the visual and audio cues of normal conversation. I adjust the hat. Mingmingla (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the rhetorical question that is raised is, are the other people actually telling him he should stay longer? The real problem here is the request for opinion couched in terms of an opinion: "I think the US is bad, do you prefer Montreal or Vancouver?" Why not Toronto or Winnipeg? If the question had been posted as, how do these US and Canadian cities compare on these criteria, it would have been much more amenable to response. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What rhetorical question Medeis? Looks to me like you were the first to answer so there were no "other people" saying anything yet. So why did you feel the need to make such a totally useless answer? You conveyed absolutely zero responses to the OP questions. Whereas I provided a link and information, including some objective comparison points between the two cities. I didn't find it all that difficult either, why was it so tough for you? Has anyone told you yet that you have the option of just ignoring questions you don't like? Franamax (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Were you one of the people who gave info about licensing? That was rather helpful; bully for you, if so. My point above was, of the people who objected to my suggestion, what was their point? That he should stick around given his valid fears? In any case, someone else seems to have removed him as trolling. I didn't. I told him to take his own concerns seriously. Shame on me for taking him at his word? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That ranks right up there with anything else I've read from you to convince me that it actually you who is the troll here. You appear to be completely blind to anything except your own desire to cause a fuss everywhere you can. My point is that your answer was TOTALLY USELESS, but unless you've forgotten, take a look here. That is a totally useless answer my friend. Whether or not someone else is a troll is no excuse for you to switch into troll mode yourself. The OP had expressed no fears at all, had they? You are exposed as a hypocrite and liar sophist IMO, but for purpose of civility I will immediately retract that, and since you will only converse through edit summaries on your own talk page, remind you here that user RFC is becoming a possibility here. Oh, and if you had actually read anything, one good reason for delaying a move would be to complete the degree or diploma in question, now wouldn't it? Franamax (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I didn't get an edit conflict and the software interwove my later-stamped comment above Jack's. If I'd gotten an e/c I would have backed up and did it all over, but some MediaWiki developer obviously thinks I'm more important. ;) LOL ;) Franamax (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it's not for us to be telling our OPs what to do, or even giving our opinion. We know nothing about the OP except for the extremely scant details they provided. He asked whether Montreal or Vancouver would be better. However one regards such a question, the least helpful response to it is "Who cares where?". Obviously the OP cares, otherwise they wouldn't have asked in the first place. As it stands, it's asking for an opinion, which we **say** we don't answer at all. But if we're going to reframe it as "What are some of the pros and cons of Montreal vs. Vancouver", that's a slightly more referenceable way to handle it. Obviously even that sort of question is going to depend on many personal factors that we're not privy to, but we could maybe find some general pros and cons and hope some of them are relevant to the OP. That would require a little digging, and that requires a little time and effort for those prepared to do the work. If you're prepared to do that work (and I'm not, I happily declare), that's the sort of approach that an OP might appreciate. If you're not prepared to do that work, best to remain silent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that "Be Bold" and "Have the courage of your convictions" are great bits of advice. At this point the only thing that has confused me is what deletions it is that Looie is talking about. I have sought, but not found. Any diffs? μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Diff and diff. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that "Be Bold" and "Have the courage of your convictions" are great bits of advice. - I couldn't agree more, as a general philosophy. A friend might say that to the OP. But we are not the OP's friend. We don't know the OP from Adam, and even if we did, it's not our place to be dispensing life/career/travel/sexual/financial/spiritual/medical/whatever advice. It's our place to answer questions with references, where the question is one for us to appropriately deal with. We provide information; it's up to the OPs to use that information or not, as they see fit, and in ways that only they can determine having regard to their full life circumstances, of which we typically know nothing. We don't even know when this OP is graduating - it could be next week or in 5 years' time.

Fwiw, your response was not your quoted "Be Bold" or "Have the courage of your convictions". The question was essentially about whether his American medical degree was transferable to the Canadian regulatory environment, i.e. whether or not his qualifications would be recognised. That requires a cited and detailed response to be half-way useful, not something trite and glib. Then the Montreal/Vancouver thing came next; maybe he's thinking there are different regulatory regimes in different provinces, and maybe there are. I wouldn't know offhand, I'd have to go looking for a reference. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 05:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a history. I apologize for being friendly. But I stand by my advice. Do you suggest he stay in the US? μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. Stand by your advice till doomsday if you like, but it will never be relevant to our mission here. The Misplaced Pages Reference Desk is not the place to provide such advice. We provide information, not advice. If you want to befriend the OP privately, please be my guest. Your last question requires no answer because it is wrongly based and wrong-headed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed questions

I have today removed two questions from 205.142.178.36 (talk · contribs), who has been cluttering the desks with increasingly erratic and useless stuff. This IP is responsible for two of the things discussed above, Coast to Coast and Moving to Canada. If this is not trolling, it is having a similar effect. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He also asked an extremely vague question about "creepy" wikipedia pages, and then got miffed when editors couldn't figure out just what he was asking. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the question I should have asked here, the diffs for the deletions are: Diff and diff. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my, what "interesting" questions, from the standpoint of the question, who is trolling what now? μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You should notify a user on their talk page when you delete their questions. This person stated in the question "Time manipulation" that they were writing a comic book, which is presumably the motivation for these erratic questions, and presumably the questions are useful to the asker, and are not deliberate acts of annoyance.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you fix the attitude the OP copped when his question was too vague? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there no worm too unappetizing to bite?

I have closed obvious trolling this nonsense:

My question is, why are there editors who find there is not a single worm they will not attempt to swallow? And people complain about the quality of the ref desk. Just Say No. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds kind of like that one editor some months back that was always asking unanswerable (i.e. not-in-the-script) questions about plot lines of films and/or TV shows. Like, "Why did or didn't they do this or that?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But, Bugs, I luvya man, ya shoulda hatted it. Ya coulda beena contenda. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was curious about who or what the OP was talking about. I'm supposing it's a TV show. In fact, the OP has previously posted on the same general subject. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By which you mean the troll has pretrolled? Does he come with available sense? My hatting was without prejudice; do please reopen if you can reword a coherent and encyclopedic question. I maintain it is not otehrwise our function to buscar las perlas en el estiércol.μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Some call it manure, others call it fertilizer. :) Nah, don't reopen it. Now that I know he's got some weird obsession with those TV characters or whatever they are, we can let the sleeping dogs lie. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We probably ought to have an article about Kelle Hampton. She writes a very popular blog, mainly about raising a child with Down's Syndrome, and recently published a book called Bloom with HarperCollins that seems to be selling pretty well. Rick Smith also writes a blog covering his experiences raising his son Noah, who also has Down's Syndrome. So there actually is some logic here. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are more OPs who just don't make any fucking sense, than there are trolls. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting, but inscrutable link, Someguy. Can you paraphrase it in God's own English/American? I can't. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It means the OP might actually think he makes sense. A fairly substantial portion of the population seems to lack the ability to see things from anyone else's POV. So, to the OP, it might be perfectly obvious who all the obscure people in his post are. Thus, he feels no need to explain. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Like the OP just assumes everyone thinks about the same stuff he does. So a good response might have been, "Who are you talking about?" As with the character that wanted info on "creepy" wikipdia articles, a good response might have been, "Define 'creepy'." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to be annoying, but that was the first real response in the "creepy" thread. I posted it. Many others also posted it. Before the answers devolved into silliness for their own sake, those were the responses given. Why they couldn't be left at that, I guess is a question for us, not the OP. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked about "creepy" pages, and the first responder gave them an article to look up, and the OP then made a snippy comment to the responder, and it kind of went downhill after that, so the OP is not blameless by any means. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

From the title I thought this thread was going to be about WP:BITE. I see it actually is about WP:BITE, but not the way I was hoping. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we grading responses now?

I'm just curious how this started. Dismas| 03:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"We" aren't grading responses. Only Medeis is, as far as I'm aware. He started a couple weeks ago? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Those of you who wish to have Medeis alter your posts in such manner as Medeis sees fit to do, please organize an opt-in list. Otherwise I shall be reverting this on an administrative basis, until and unless I see consensus at an RFC allowing individual "ratings". Franamax (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fart. (Oops, pardon me for rudely reporting my bodily functions as editorial comments). You just missed the RfD on this, and your unilaterally deciding that you will stalk and refactor me will go straight to ANI. Anyone who wants to remove his own star is free to do so. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For how it started, take a look around here and go back and forth a few thousand revisions. The star comes in and at some point goes over to using the template here. I think it's Ec5618 using it and they are the author of the template. Medeis has challenged me on my talk page with the argument that a TFD discussion condones their usage, which the actual discussion does not. In fact, that discussion notes how it is hardly used at all - and looks to me like just a few 2006 pages. For more recent discussions, perhaps someone else could dig up the last iteration where we discussed (I do believe it was, but could be corrected)-Dweller's resurrected "thread of the week" award, which was kinda nice and worked OK-ish but got comprehensively demolished by another regular on the basis of consensus-or-don't-do-it-at-all. In any case, there has never been any established consensus at these Desks that individuals are permitted to alter other people's posts with any sort of iconography, nor to liven things up with any sort of fave points or thumbs-up. If editors feel that consensus has changed, this is likely the best place to discuss at the outset. Franamax (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's such a bad idea, except the questioners (I hate the term "OP") won't know what it means. What's wrong with just posting "good answer" in reply when you see something you think was answered well? 75.166.207.214 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the point was for the OP to place it next to the answer they like best. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OPs have no more authority to alter anyone else's posts than any regulars do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but I also thought that it should be placed after their comment, not before as I've seen people actually do it, and the one time that I've placed one I also left a small signature so there was no abiguity as to whether it was part of someone else's comment. 149.135.147.110 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's what those stars are. I thought people were just adding them to their own posts. Seemed a bit egotistical.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make that particular leap, but equally I didn't get that it was coming from another editor, until this thread. If that's not totally clear, the whole exercise seems rather pointless. That's aside from whether it's OK to dabble in other editors' posts. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 12:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this about 2-3 weeks ago, about 1-2 weeks ago I checked to see who it was and confirmed it was μηδείς (sad to say, one of the contributors I thought the most likely culprits). I didn't agree with it but couldn't be bothered making a deal of it. I would fully support anyone who wishes to revert these additions. They are unsigned and none of us ever appointed μηδείς as the official gold star awarder, and from what I've seen many of these additions are questionable (the post they are added to is often not what I could call the best one in the thread). They also have the potential to cause confusion, personally I was worried OPs would think we have some official system of marking the 'best' replies but it's apparent from this thread another concern is people think posters are adding them themselves which is likely to reflect poorly on the poster. Personally although I know it has been controversial in the past, I don't mind if μηδείς wants to give gold stars, thread of the day or whatevers on their talk or user pages or posting to other user pages when the people themselves don't mind but there's no need to clutter up the RD proper with it. (Even if we did develop a method of signing such additions, it would still be too much unwanted clutter particularly if others decided to join in. I would probably make an exception for OPs adding them if they desire.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. If someone gives you a star (anyone can do so, and I am not the only one who has done so) and you don't want it, feel free to delete it. If placing the star before a post is seen as 'modifying' that post then I will simply place them after. I did that at first, but aesthetically I thought it looked better before. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming people always (or should always) check their posts to see if someone has added a star (or whatever else). There are also the other problems already mentioned (unsigned and confusion to both OPs and established editors over who put the star, cluttering up the desk particularly if others decide to join in and we solve the unsigned business, the fact that it's on the desk means there's more likely to be unnecessary controvery over stars which have been awarded). Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis is — to not put too blunt a point on it — an accomplished troll. He or she enjoys irritating others, enjoys getting them riled up, enjoys baiting them, enjoys pretending to put them in their place, enjoys disrupting things. Why you are attempting to reason with him or her is beyond me. He or she does not care what you think; he or she will do exactly the opposite of what you desire until there is finally enough critical mass for people to declare Medeis a sufficient detriment to the community here to ban him or her from these pages (or everyone of any seriousness just abandons the place). And even then I'd be surprised if he or she doesn't just set up a new account and continue the same actions. This is all quite obvious; I think we're well beyond the point of assuming any good faith here. This thread — like every other Medeis thread — makes it quite plain, and no doubt some snippy little comment by Medeis after this one will further confirm my point yet again. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So my putting a star, designed for the purpose, next to someone's good answer is trolling? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Every interaction you have with other users, especially those who are unhappy with something you've done, but even those who are just trying to engage, is characterized by bile. You can see it plainly up above. You can see it plainly in your edit history. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew Kibo, and Medeis is no Kibo. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Nil, it's an easy matter to put a signature as a < ! - - comment - - > in the edits to make it clear who has done what. I think it is a change of pace and a nice way of showing your appreciation for someone's effort. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much never read the wikimark-up of other people's responses, and even less often their signatures. So for people like me, and for anyone who isn't editing at all, just reading, they will never see your hidden signature. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, if you "don't understand all the fuss" that's too bad, but it's clear that consensus is very solidly against applying those stars in that way, so please accept it. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize what those stars were, and who was doing it. Let me make this clear from my perspective: Medeis, please stop doing this. You are not the arbiter of quality and of appropriateness around here. For the past several weeks, you have been spending an inordinate amount of time to deciding what kinds of questions and answers are appropriate and not, and to be blunt, no one needs you to do that. Answer questions you want to, don't answer questions you don't want to, and please, I am begging you, stop trying to manage the "quality" of the reference desks. It isn't helpful, and is only bound to end in heartache and discord. Just stop it and instead just answer questions. In every other time before you when someone has involved themselves with this sort of silliness, it has ended badly for them. You are not different. Just answer questions, or don't. But please stop trying to manage the desks. --Jayron32 17:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the stars themselves as being a big problem, if they're used in a way that makes plain who posted them there. As for being the arbiter of quality and of appropriateness, the placement of stars is really just a short hand way of saying "That's a good answer". I don't see how the issue of clutter is made any worse by using stars instead of a line of text. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue with occasional compliments and feedback, as such (as long as any one editor does not appoint themself the regular arbiter/police/inspector-general of everyone else here). But there are ways, and then there are ways. If I wrote "That's a good answer" or whatever, (a) I'd do it as a new post, (b) I'd indent it under the existing post, and (c) I'd sign it. Using a star symbol to replace those words does not mean I'd be off the hook with the other elements of the procedure. Sticking it in front of the existing post is not on. Not signing it, and thus making it seem like it was an inherent part of the other editor's own post, is particularly not on. I agree with Jayron's general remarks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hatting of "Responding to Prayer Requests"

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#Responding_to_Prayer_Requests

User 75.166.207.214 has asked, in response to my hatting the question and the answers so far: "Are the dynamics of personal interactions really not within the realm of humanities, or are they perhaps the most central of all humanities?"

My response is as follows: This is the wrong question to be asking. It's not about whether such a question belongs on the Humanities desk vs. the Miscellaneous desk vs. the Computing desk vs. whatever. It's about whether it belongs on the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk AT ALL. I can't remember seeing a clearer case of the answer being NO to such a question.

Ask yourself this: Would you go down to your library and ask this question of your friendly librarian? Would they be able to suggest a good reference book to answer the question? Or a good website? Very doubtful, imo. Well, we're in the same boat.

We're always telling our OPs not to trust advice they get from anonymous people on the internet whose qualifications to answer their random questions are unknown and very likely non-existent. Yet look at what happens when someone asks us questions that we have no business answering. I appreciate that people just want to help, and are well-intentioned. That is not the issue here. Our expertise is finding good references, where the work of other experts is available for the OP to read and use as they will. When we profess to become the experts in personal guidance ourselves, that's exceeding our brief, but not in a good way. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good close. I should not have commented on that thread. 149.135.147.110 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that, whatever the "Citizens Advice Bureau" is in Australia, in the UK it exists to give people assistance with dealing with bureaucracy in whatever form: it does not take requests for advice on interpersonal relationships. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be an etiquette question. There are books on etiquette, so, I suppose, if a librarian was asked, they would refer them there. Miss Manners, Emily Post, and Letitia Baldrige wrote several such books. StuRat (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I grant that there may be some etiquette book somewhere that deals with this type of question. I doubt it's the sort of issue that most run-of-the-mill books would address, but it's possible. The role of anyone who wanted to get involved in answering the OP was to track down such a book and tell the OP its name and preferably the page/section that deals with the issue. Or a suitable website link. There is a reason why this is called a "reference desk".

Just because the OP asked "is there any type of response that is compassionate and honest and helpful", rather than "is there a reliable book or guide to the etiquette in these situations", doesn't give us carte blanche to just start spouting our own personal opinions and thoughts and recommendations. If an OP asked which party or candidate to vote for in an upcoming election, or which religion to join, or which career to pursue, or for advice about their marital woes, or which bank to patronise, or which shares to buy, would anyone here feel it was their place to advise them directly? I most certainly hope NOT. Most of us have opinions on a wide range of matters, but the great bulk of those opinions are irrelevant to this desk and its purposes. People's desire to help is laudable, and presumably that's part of the motivation of every regular here. But that desire has to be tempered with a strong sense of where and when and how best to help others. If people want to get into the personal advice/guidance game, fine. But the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk is not the place to do their boot camp training. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 13:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a google search for "etiquette for atheists" revealed that there are lots of references for the exact thing the OP was asking about e.g. , , , , etc. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. So how come those links are provided in here, while the OP remains blissfully unaware of them out there? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the thread is closed with a whole lot of messy conversation going on underneath it. You add it in if you want. I'm not touching that thread anymore. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that the thread is open again, I've added those refs there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What the OP is really asking is, "Should I be selflessly supportive or should I impose my personal belief on them?" Is it more harmful to tell them, "I'll pray for you", which is untrue but may give them comfort; or to tell them, "I don't pray, so go F yourself." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be a reasonable summary to me, but it's no more answerable (in RD context) than the original formulation. Apart from "consult an etiquette guide" or "ask an advice columnist", I don't see much that we should be providing as an answer. — Lomn 14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So who do nonreligious people ask for moral advice in situations where religious people would ask their clergyman? Pais (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone they respect, whose opinions they regard as generally sensible. Looked at that way, it's nice that someone tried to ask the question on the RD. However, since they cannot possibly get anything other than an opinion in this case, the hatting was a fair call to squish an inconclusive debate before it went any further. Karenjc 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of any prohibition against personal advice in WP:RDG, only professional medical and legal advice. There is no mention of any prohibition against questions without factual answers. There is no evidence that there is not a factual answer to the question. It would be entirely within reason for a psychology or sociology researcher to explore what kind of interactions between grieving or anxious people and others with different religious beliefs result in the most parsimonious outcomes. I think the hatting and the very verbose and patronising manner in which this was hatted was wrong. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a selection of quotes from the Guidelines (my bolding):

• The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk. In a library, users consult the professional staff at the reference desk for help in finding information. We don't have professional staff, so fellow Wikipedians work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.
• The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources.
• Responses to posts ... should almost always fall into one of three categories: (a) direct answers or referrals to Misplaced Pages articles, web pages, or other sources; ....
• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a very easy matter to provide references to notable thinkers who have written on the matter. I suggest we focus on that. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I would love to read some. If authorities in interpersonal relations have written on the topic, then I presume that would address all of Jack's concerns above. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Being the OP who started this discussion as well as being a persistent sort, I have followed the discussion here. The discussion is a piquant mixture of answers to my question and arguments that the question should not be answered at a Reference Desk. Thanks to all for your attention to my question.

I knew when I asked the question that it was not likely to have an easy answer but I was sure that other people must have asked and answered the question before it sprang to my mind. So I seemed to me a fair question to ask at a Reference Desk.

Just for the record, my initial question included the statement that in the context described I WOULD NOT give an answer of this sort: "I am so very sorry but I don't believe in prayer". CBHA (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis is right. Here is some detailed exposition on the topic by someone who has obviously thought about it enough to churn out several pages each. There is more at http://www.squidoo.com/sympathy-101-for-atheists (that host is in our spam filter for some reason) and it's an even better essay in my opinion. Here are some briefer forum suggestions.

I'd like to undo the hatting and its commentary and add those links for the archive unless anyone objects. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I think we should do is hat the remaining comments that don't answer the question (we shouldn't be debating policy there) and IP 75 you can copy your above under the new subheading I made at the bottom of that thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#what_serious_thinkers_have_said_on_atheists_and_prayer

I have expanded the hatting to all irrelevancies and reformatted the thread, and taken the liberty of copying the body of 75.166.207.214's response there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#Responding_to_Prayer_Requests μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)