Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

We're still fast

Click for more details.

I did a brief analysis last year of our response speed on the Science Desk. On a whim, I repeated the analysis using data from four days in November (November 1, 10, 19, and 27).

I've only plotted the time to the first response, and I haven't attempted to assess the quality of answers supplied. (Someone who's more dedicated can dive in.)

No questions went unanswered this year. Our median response time was 33 minutes, and three-quarters of all questions received a response in less than two hours (106 minutes).

All of these numbers were similar to 2007's figures; see File:Questions Answered Science Ref Desk.gif. Keep up the good work, everyone! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful math/s, Ten of all, thank you, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the science desk after all, may I ask how you chose the days? Was is random or is there a chance of selection bias? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I chose four days roughly evenly spaced through the month, including a roughly proportionate mix of weekdays (one each of a Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday) and weekend days (one Saturday). In other words, my choices were selected to give (what I hope was) a representative (but not random) sample. For what it's worth, I selected the dates from my wall calendar before I looked at the archive pages; there wasn't any cherrypicking of the data. The number of questions on each day was roughly the same, however I didn't look closely at the number or size of responses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable assertion of safety removed

Under the Science desk topic "Speed of sound in SF6" the following was posted:

Sigma-Aldrich probably carries it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this gas is hazardous to inhale - though non-toxic, it can displace oxygen and cause suffocation. If the intention is to use the gas for novelty voice effects, you should reconsider based on informed understanding of the possible hazards. Nimur (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "don't try this at home" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Or anywhere... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually inhaling SF6 as a party trick is relatively safe. Contrary to some myths, it is easily expelled from the lungs with just a few deep breaths. And even if you were stupid enough to try to hold it in, the body's suffocation reflex would get your lungs to convulse and expel the gas. The real risk is that SF6 will fill the room you are in without you noticing (odorless/colorless/tasteless, etc.), but the risk of that can be managed by being in a large ventilated area. Inhaling small quantities of SF6 from a low pressure/low quantity source like a balloon is quite safe. Dragons flight (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[1]

Questionable safety advice removed to Ref Desk discussion page.Edison (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the above post by Dragons flight from the above from the Science Desk. I object to telling people it is "relatively safe" or "quite safe" to inhale a gas which can cause asphyxiation. This jumps into medical advice about how the body's "suffocation reflex" would work. Edison (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. I was tempted to chime in on that question with all kinds of notes about how the practice could be dangerous, but frankly I didn't want to help someone get in over their head. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.) Ignoring asphyxiation and other direct risks of exposure, some damn fool will probably do themselves serious harm passing out and falling down on the surrounding lab equipment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying over the rest of the safety related discussion. Fostering paranoid by saying this is unsafe is not helpful. The experiment comparing the effects of breathing small amount of He to small amounts of SF6 is done in middle school and high school chem labs. It is quite safe, and we shouldn't be scaring people and saying things like "don't try this anywhere". If you don't want me to say it is safe (when it is), then fine. But you shouldn't allow other people to say it is unsafe. Out of curiosity, I searched the LexisNexis news archive and can't find a single news report of anyone ever dying due to exposure to SF6. If you have ever had access to the stuff you'd know accidental suffocation is pretty unlikely (outside of accidents with industrial quantities). Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page now has no direct discussion of breathing it, I hope that other people find that satisfactory. Dragons flight (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I might try it myself,like breathing helium, but there is always someone who will take it to the extreme and die, by trying it in such a way that fresh air is not readily available when they pass out. I see no reason to encourage that. Passing out and falling down can also be quite harmful. Edison (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to respond to the rest of the discussion but I should point out there is likely a difference between trying a small amount in school, presemuably under the supervision of people who have experience with the sort of thing and are well aware of the risks and necessary precautions and can also manage any emergencies is likely quite different from trying it yourself alone without any knowledge of the risks etc Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This removal is WRONG. I must protest it in the strongest possible terms.

We simply don't go around removing replies that we happen to believe are incorrect. That's NOT how the RD works. To allow this to happen sets a dangerous precedent. What we do - in the spirit of openness - is to post a reply eloquently explaining the contrary position (preferably with evidence and stuff) - and we allow the OP to decide which argument sounds the most convincing. This is well established practice - and I see no reason to change that practice in this case.

So removing this reply because you think it's wrong is NOT justified - if we all went around removing each others post every time we believed them to be wrong - the RD would be a battlefield. That's simply NOT how we work.

Nothing that's been said above in any way addresses why we should apply different principles in this case - it doesn't matter whether the answer is true or false - WE DON'T REMOVE INCORRECT ANSWERS. This one isn't even definitely wrong - it appears to be highly controversial in fact - all the more reason not to remove it just because you happen to disagree with it.

I move that we restore the discussion immediately before the OP loses interest in the topic. I'll do it myself unless I hear a clear consensus not to do so.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I don't want to disagree with you (I can count on maybe one toe when I've ever done so, and I was probably wrong then), but telling someone that inhaling a dangerous substance is perfectly safe is not a good way to go. You're right that it can be refuted by someone else, but should we be having that type of discussion? It's a Science desk, not a stunt-desk, and IMO we're crossing the line into medical advice. Certainly, saying "it won't kill you" is offering a medical opinion, isn't it? Franamax (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve on this. If you think an answer is wrong - say so, and say why. Provide a reference if you can. I don't see any medical advice in the removed content - risk management maybe, but that's actually a good thing in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this comes under the medical question category - and it certainly wasn't removed on that basis - so let's not seek new reasons to cover up a fundamentally bad decision. The OP wasn't seeking medical advice - remember: (S)he asked about the speed of sound in a gas. Nothing medical about that! The medical prohibition is not to disallow us from explaining medical matters - we do that all the time. It's there to prevent us from attempting to diagnose or cure the OP's specific medical problems.

For what it's worth - I strongly agree that the reply was totally incorrect - inhaling "inert" gasses can be exceedingly dangerous...it definitely comes under the "Don't try this at home" category. Heavier-than-air gasses are even more dangerous than helium...and even helium is well-known to kill people who don't know how to demonstrate it safely. But there was no reason why we couldn't say that - in detail - with references - with explanations as to why - with loud denounciations of the person who said it was safe...sure, you can put the fear of God into the poor OP. But deleting the answer is extremely counter-productive.

Indeed, if the OP returned, read the (presumed-to-be-incorrect/dangerous) reply - then came back later and saw the entire thread had vanished - he/she may well not understand why and could easily assume that the original advice was good. The ONLY way to safely counter that incorrect reply once it's been read is to add a clear, cogent, well-researched contradictory response. In this case, two answers - one of which says "it's OK, it's safe" and another that says "no, it could kill you" would be enough to make most people at least think twice about doing it. Simply deleting the incorrect reply doesn't do that. Heck, if I were the OP, I might think that the deletion was simple vandalism or 'a computer glitch' or something.

But there is a strong principle at stake here - if we simply start removing replies without there being a clear guideline (like the medical/legal guidelines) then it'll be open warfare within a month and we CERTAINLY don't want that.

Fight words with better words. Please.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The original thread was indeed a science question, but then devolved somehow into a discussion of whether the gas is safe to breathe, and DF unfortunately decided that it is, and the particular post in fact was removed under the medical stricture. There's two little weird bits right there.

I see the RefDesks as a little mini-pedia where we work out the rules on our own without the paraphernalia of policy, hopefully just on our own common sense and goodwill toward each other and the OP's. To that extent, I'm not enthused with the "answer everything" crowd, since I do believe our first principle should be "do no harm" - whether or not that involves any strict medical/legal test. For instance, if someone came here and said "I just found unexploded ordinance in a marketplace, how can I set it off?", we would hopefully not leap to provide that information.

Steve, I would trust you in particular to restore the post and simultaneously provide a convincing rebuttal (though you didn't declare that as your intention). To that extent, I agree with you. I wouldn't have the same faith in some others, so I'll maintain that the prudent course is to remove first, restore later, when the initial concerns have been addressed. Franamax (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't jump right in and restore the thread because that too is not how we work around here. Once someone has taken action like that, we discuss it here and try to form a consensus before countermanding the original person's decision to take drastic action. If there is any merit at all to the original deletion - we need to discuss it rather than start an ugly edit-war. Sadly, the short time-scales over which our OP's monitor the answers they get makes any protracted conversation about the deletion moot. It's probably already too late to mess around with restoring and writing a detailed rebuttal for a two-day-old question thread.

That very difficulty of responding with a reasoned talk-page consensus in a timely manner puts EXTRA responsibility on the person doing the deleting to do so only under the most extenuating circumstances - in direct response to a very clear policy violation would be the only occasion I'd do it. The best that can come out of this now is a consensus NOT to delete replies just because we happen to disagree with them. As I said before - the correct response to a bad answer is a better answer. We all make mistakes (I made a horrible one a few weeks ago when I forgot the formula for Newton's law of cooling and threw the discussion right off the rails!) - but it should be our firmly stated, consensus-back policy that we DO NOT DELETE INCORRECT RESPONSES - instead we shoot them down with fact and references.

So - let me make a formal proposal:

Proposal to add a clause to the WP:RD guidelines.

I would like to add the following section (or something very similar to it) to the WP:RD guidelines-for-respondants:

Respondants must refrain from deleting other people's answers to questions posed on the Reference Desks even if they know those answers to be false or misleading. The correct response to an incorrect Reference Desk answer is to post a correct answer - possibly explaining why the previous reply was wrong - hopefully backing that assertion with copious references and links to Wikipedia articles - but in cases of recklessly dangerous advice ("Sure, it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying") a simple "That's not true!" may be used while a more nuanced reply is composed. The only answers that may be justifiably deleted without prior discussion and consensus are those that are in clear violation of our posted guidelines - such as answers to questions seeking medical advice or providing answers to obvious "homework questions". Respondants may delete their own replies if they later believe them to be incorrect or inappropriate - but it is generally considered more polite to merely strike them out with <s>strikeout markup</s> in order to preserve the 'flow' of a complex debate.

Please respond with the usual Support/Reject replies - along with a brief statement of your reasons and a ~~~~ signature:

• Support (per my posts above) SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per Steve's (as always) very clear and sensible arguments above. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: 1.typo: respondant –> respondent. 2. Could it be briefer? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Voting is premature, given that there hasn't been any time or opportunity to discuss the proposal. What's the rush to a vote? I've created a section for discussion below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Steves proposed new rule implies that I removed content from the ref desk simply because it was incorrect. In fact I took the action because I saw a danger to life from someone following the recommendation offered. If someone says to take a whole bottle of aspirin for a bad headache, that should be removed rather than offering a counterargument about proper dosing. Edison (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new clause - discussion

I'm badly pressed for time at the moment, so I can't jump into a detailed set of arguments. I'll note that I think it's absolutely reasonable to remove "it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying". I'd probably also block the troll who posted it. We're supposed to be helping people here, not harming them. Users who are obviously acting against that goal should be shown the door.

That said, I think there is room for a conversation about how we handle comments for which the interpretation, intent, and context are a bit more nuanced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I wouldn’t think twice about removing the above statement per WP:UCS as patently ridiculous and dangerous. (That being said I would still note the removal here.) I’m sympathetic to the position that we should not selectively remove other editor’s replies, but I don’t believe an absolute statement like “must refrain from” is warranted or useful. There are always exceptions. I can think circumstances where immediate reversion of another editor’s comments may be necessary: an editor that is revealing personal information about a person/user for instance. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a guideline - you can still use common sense - ignore all rules - that kind of thing. What is needed is a simple guideline to tell people that removing answers that we think are incorrect is not our modus operandi here at the RD. I mentioned that it's OK to remove things that violate our other guidelines...if revealing personal information is not OK - then we should say so in the guidelines. By all means fritz around with the wording of the proposal. SteveBaker (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well that sounds pretty reasonable. I’d really like to hear what other people think though. Somebody want to comment? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering, how often does this happen to justify an etiquette statement at all? but suggest one that appeals to me is this selection from Steve's own words:

Note: Do not delete incorrect responses, instead offer a correct response with references. Only threads in clear violation of guidelines may be deleted.

Otherwise, it's tl:dr all over again. Personally, I support the deletion of a completely phobic thread that got away from the original question and seemed to unfairly impute all kinds of chaotic dangers/impulses to the poster. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder if additional specific guidance is actually required here. The current wording of the existing guideline#When removing or redacting a posting reads (in part):

---

When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply. In particular, never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, as discussed in these and the present guidelines, but you should exercise caution in doing so. In all cases, use common sense rather than some literally-minded interpretation of the guidelines. Removing postings unwisely is bound to result in hurt feelings and acrimonious debate.

When removing a posting, also remove any posted reactions, unless they are appropriate and can stand on their own, not needing the other removed material for context.

In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it....

When you remove a posting, it is recommended to note this on the Reference desk talk page. Include a diff of your edit.

...

Please do not restore a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just because you disagree with the reasoning, and also do not discuss this on the Reference desk pages themselves. Instead, discuss the issue on the Reference desk talk page, so that, hopefully, consensus may be reached.

---

Is there really much that we want to say beyond the current wording? I fear that we may be trying to codify common sense — more often than not a futile endeavour. While I appreciate Julia's suggestion above, I'm afraid that one man's 'clear violation' is another man's 'informative response'; it may not be possible to avoid gray areas.

Looking at the specific case that started this thread, we did essentially follow the (existing) process. A post was removed to this talk page, and a (frank) discussion about its appropriateness ensued. The fact that the discussion took place – with multiple views from multiple parties – suggests that the removal of the comment was not patently unreasonable on its face, nor was it unambiguously out of line with what at least a substantial portion of the Ref Desk participants think is reasonable or ethically appropriate.

So, would the proposed change preclude the comment removal which precipitated this discussion? At least some of the argument above is based on the notion that the response given was not merely incorrect, but incorrect in such a way as to potentially present a serious hazard to life or health. While I'm hesitant to declare a consensus, at the moment it seems that a healthy majority of participants here would be willing to remove (or tolerate the removal of) the hypothetical baby-in-a-bag comment. Both would seem to fall on the misleading-and-potentially-dangerous continuum, albeit at widely spaced points. Where we ultimately place our threshold of tolerance on that continuum is always going to be fuzzy and context-dependent, and I don't think amenable to easy codification in our guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you say it's more or less covered in WP:BEANS ? As to my "one"-liner for the How to answer questions section, on reading it, it does seem to be covered. If something needs to go in , I'd prefer leaving out "clear" since, as Ten says, it frequently isn't. As for common sense, though, it's not that common. A conundrum when you look into it. PS I edited myself above. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion that ensued post-deletion in this case was more or less entirely about whether the reply was correct or not. That's not the point. That debate about the truth of the statement could more usefully have been conducted on the RD itself rather than on the Talk: page. The point was that although the reply was clearly incorrect (I'm pretty sure I can prove that if forced to do so) - it should not have been deleted. There was no harm to be done in leaving it there PROVIDING that at least one person replied in a fairly forceable manner to say that the reply was incorrect. If we head down the slippery slope of people deleting replies because they are believed to be incorrect then the RD will rapidly become unworkable. I don't want to let this become a precedent-setting case. There have been hundreds (possibly thousands) of cases where someone is really sure that a previous post was incorrect - only do discover after a bit of further investigation that is was in fact perfectly OK. Case in point - was my horrendous boo-boo when I forgot the equation for Newton's law of cooling. I was (at the time) 100% sure in my mind that the previous post was incorrect - and I said so. Sadly, my brain-slip was a bad one - and shortly afterwards, someone else corrected me. If I had taken the line that the previous reply was wrong and therefore DELETED it, then the followup to my reply had deleted my reply in turn - it would have been a horribly bloody argumentative mess - rather than a bad post from me followed up by an eloquent correction from another respondant. Some of these questions are pretty difficult - it's not always possible to get it right on the first, second or even third reply - but if we start deleting things just because we don't think they are correct - the RD will change in nature from a place where there is an exchange of ideas and education to an edit-war battle-ground. In article space, it's necessary that the article is maintained in a clear state - and corrections have to be done by deletion of incorrect facts - but the RD is very different - it's more of a 'stream-of-collective-consciousness' thing - and there is no reason not to preserve multiple viewpoints. Hence we should leave all of the replies (including the ones we believe to be incorrect) right there in the thread and let the evidence speak for itself.

I would hope that my change WOULD preclude the removal of the response that was debated above. The person who deleted it could just as easily - and just as effectively (more effectively, IMHO) posted "No! You're wrong. Breathing this stuff is potentially lethal." - that would have been just good as removing the offending post - without the risk of delete-wars getting started.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad reluctant to start editing policy over what appears to be a relatively rare happening. Talk of setting precedents, slippery slopes, delete-wars, and so forth strikes me as an extrapolation not necessarily warranted by the events that have taken place.

I think that in the vast majority of cases, the helpers (responders? answerers? what should we be called?) here are quite content to leave incorrect answers in place and simply to provide rebuttals. I know it's something that I've done on many an occasion. (The Desks – and probably human nature – sometimes have a problem with responders who prioritize 'fast' over 'correct' or 'fact-checked', but that's another kettle of fish.)

The distinction between your Newton's law of cooling example and the sulfur hexafluoride case above is that the latter case involves offering potentially life-threatening guidance to our readers while the former did not. While I'm not entirely convinced that removing the comment in the SF6 case was the best course of action, I'm also not comfortable asserting that the removal was harmful, or even necessarily undesirable. I'm working against a bit of a (real-life) deadline and I have to cut this reply short, but I think we need to consider very carefully how to approach these situations in the future; the time isn't yet ripe to write new policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve mischaracterized my action. I do not go around removing replies I believe to be incorrect. I saw an immediate danger and acteed immediately. I moved it here for review, rather than simply deleting it. If someone says E= M*C*2 I will not delete it, but will instead post my own reply noting the error and offering a referenced correction. I moved the text in question not because I felt it was incorrect, but because of a unreferenced and questionable assertion that inhaling a suffocating gas was "quite safe" when in fact it could clearly cause death or injury. The reply I removed also offered unsolicited medical advice about the "suffocation response." No safety guidelines were included about making sure that there is breathable air in the space (don't put put your head in a bag of SF6) Numerous people have died from entering confined spaces filled with nitrogen rather than air. It was not responsive to the original question, which asked about the speed of sound in the gas. No guidelines were provided, such as not doing it via a mask, or making sure there was adult supervision, or making sure that the gas did not contain adulterants (recycled SF6 removed from a circuit breaker would contain products of arcing, for instance). No reference link was provided, such as to a science experiment site published by a college. No irreparable harm is done by the immediate removal to this reference page of similar well intentioned but dangerous recommendations. If the community disagrees with the removal, it can be readded. Edison (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

archiving task

Here's a little archiving assistance task, if someone feels up to it. (I can't think of an easy way to do it, or I'd do it myself.)

1. at 00:31 on 15 December 2008 with this edit, scsbot archived the Mathematics desk for December 11 to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008 December 11, as usual.
2. at 18:25 on 15 December 2008 with this edit, Topology Expert moved that day's content back to the main Mathematics desk, un-transcluding it.
3. at 01:24 on 16 December 2008 with this edit, scsbot tried to archive December 11 a second time. It deleted the day's text from the main desk, but couldn't place it at WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11, because WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 was already there. (But it did re-transclude WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 to the main desk, as usual.)

Question 1: Did #2 accurately copy the contents of WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 as of 18:25 on 15 December 2008?

Question 2: Were there any changes made to the December 11 text on the main Mathematics desk after that? (I suspect there were.)

Question 3: Were any further changes made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #2 happened, and before #3 happened?

Question 4: Have any further changes been made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #3 happened? (Note that this question is a moving target: if the answer is "no" now, it could change to "yes" at any time.)

Depending on the answers to these questions, we can either have the bot forcibly recreate WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 with the text deleted from the main Mathematics desk in #3 (which is easy), or hand-integrate the changes involved in question 2 back into WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 (which is harder). Or we can throw up our hands and forget about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that the current MathRef page has the valid content for Dec 11? In that case, wouldn't the simplest course be to rename the existing (and presumably bad) Dec 11 archive page to "Dec11-deletable" and let the bot do it's normal thing? Then we just MfD the Dec11-deletable page. Will that sweep up the crumbs? Franamax (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, remove the existing entry in the archive index for Dec 11 also, to leave a clean slate for Scsbot. Franamax (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the questions? I think the problem is Steve doesn't know what's happened to the content (whether the MathRef page has the complete valid content, whether the archived page has been modified etc) and needs someone else to check it since he's quite busy. I'll start that now Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay in response to question 1, the answer is yes [2] (I copied the archived version and the version that Topology copied to my sandbox and did a diff, the only difference is Topology didn't copy his/her new reply but he/she replied again so that doesn't matter). In response to question 2 the answer is again yes [3] (I copied the text that Scsbot removed and compared to the version Topology added back). In response to question 3 the answer is no see the edit history of the archive page [4]. In response to question 4 the answer is a partial yes since I copied the version that Scsbot removed back to the archive page. Since nothing happened to the transcluded archive page there was no need to manually integrate anything and everything is now fine. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for those still confused about this, basically the problem was that Topology copied the transcluded page to the main page for reasons unknown. This meant there were now two versions of December 11, one in the archive page and one in the main reference desk page. Most people would have seen the main version but if anyone visited the archives directly they would have seen and edited the archived version. When the bot was next run, it removed the content of December 11 on the main page and added the transclusion template in preparation to make an archive page but then threw up an exception to Steve because the archive page already existed. This meant the main page now showed the old transcluded page which Topology had copied and anyone trying to change the page would have modified the transcluded archive page. Fortunately no one did ever modify the archived page after topology copied it back so I just had to do what I mentioned above and it's all fixed. P.S. As to why Topology started this mess, well you'd noted Topology added his/her reply twice to the archive page. I suspect there was some sort of caching issue which meant the reply wasn't showing up and rather then purging it, he/she just copied the archived page back. Tpology appears to be in a bad mood at least partially due to a disputed AFD and has recently changed his/her page to say he/she was retiring. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! —Steve Summit (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section after it was put back in the main article and my edit ended up disappearing at some point during the process to fix it. I realised what had happened and decided it wasn't worth fixing it, it probably still isn't. The discussion was pretty much going round in circles by that point anyway. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain? The only edit of yours that I can see to the December 11th section that occured after Topology added it back is this [5] which has been there (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008 December 11) since I fixed the section (it did disappear in between the time the bot removed the section again and the time I fixed the section for the reason explained above). Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

Here, 87.102.86.73 said "...forward and the new date pointing backwards...". How does he mean?96.53.149.117 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He means to put a link in the old thread to the new thread and a link in the new thread to the old thread. -- kainaw™ 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell, people?

[6]. The guidelines only apply whenever you feel like, or what? And hey, let's don't forget to all chime in on "Who would win?" and "Punch in the face" since we're not bothering with answering valid questions with references these days. --LarryMac | Talk 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

The Wikipedia Chatroom. Because let's face it, that's what it's become. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Says who? You? I don't agree. -- kainaw™ 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See LarryMac's comment above. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit fun is ok as long as you don't lose sight of the main role, to answer factual questions. I see no harm in the hard working regulars indulging in a little lighthearted banter now and then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this kind of thing isn't really a Refdesk, but it's certainly not a chatroom. flaminglawyer^c 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the chatty replies, but the chatty questions get a bit tedious. Matt Deres (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Just in the past day, I have left extensive answers with references on at least half a dozen serious questions. If the question doesn't beg a serious answer, then it likely gets less than serious responses. I am unbothered at this point. If you don't want to reply, then don't. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just glance over the science reference desk (I can't talk for the others) and nearly every serious question is exhaustively answered, with references, by the regular contributors. Their work should be congratulated, not complained about. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's complaining about the regulars; I think the complaints are about people looking for advice on how to get a girl and posts about punching people in the face. I like it when responders leaven their answers with a bit of humour, like the occasional pun (there are even sum on the math desk, nyuk, nyuk!) or facetious link, though I would never post such a thing myself! Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then it should be explicitly stated, all I interpret from it is that people are being critisized for not replying with references anymore - which is completely unfounded - on the current desk I see many excelent replies with excellent references. If we are talking about a few bad eggs as you suggest then it is not appropriate to say the reference desk has become a chat room since those post are evidently in the minority. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to post your comment in the thread above. Matt Deres (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is with the questions - then we're screwed. Much as I too hate some of the dumb questions people ask - as soon as we start excluding them, it'll be a slippery slope. Most questions get the answer they deserve. Our readers are almost always happy at the end - and when you compare what we do with 'competing' services (Yahoo Answers for example), we do a VASTLY superior job. Don't change a thing. SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Medical Advice removed

this was a blatant "I have a (insert disease here). Give me medical advice." question. I feel it rather depressing that so many people responded, including otherwise good editors. Perhaps I read the question wrong. Feel free to revert if I'm completely off on this. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but the common cold doesn't seem like medical advice to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with kainaw. There's a self-diagnosis implicit in the statement "I have the common cold," and, while may be a correct self-diagnosis, it's still a self-diagnosis of a medical condition. Had the user asked "What are some alleged remedies for the common cold," that would be more of a gray area, but the original wording of the question was a pretty clear request for medical advice. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; that's a good call. The question was right over the line of a request for medical advice. It's a bit unfortunate that we didn't catch it sooner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the question should have been removed, though it's really more chatty than a pure request for advice. "My car broke down and the dog threw up - what should I do now?" is neither a request for mechanical or veterinarian advice, but a call for commiseration. Maybe I read it wrong as well. Most of the replies were pretty harmless, at least. Matt Deres (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal advice?

The recent question on WP:RD/M#Attaining US Residency as a student seems to me like a request for legal advice, although the relevant expert to ask would probably be an immigration officer, not a lawyer. I'm just enough unsure about that that I haven't deleted the question and answer, but I think I hope someone else will. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, but is personal and I wonder why not ask the registry and the regular bodies involved in this kind of plan? Maybe it's like the common cold chat – "I'm thinking of this, but need some reassurance..." Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not legal advice, as you wouldn't go to a lawyer for such basic questions. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

[7]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like trolling to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because that seems like such an impossibly long time? Maybe the poor fellow's just really tired from work. :) jk --S.dedalus (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A job that tires him out sexually ? Trying to earn an Xmas bonus, is he ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal advice (unpaid medical bills)

[8] (also not appropriate for Science desk). -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That’s not legal advice. The OP never says this is himself or anyone he knows. For all we know this is an entirely hypothetical situation used for illustration. It’s a legal themed question, that’s all. Consensus has always been that we base our judgments on the actual content of the question. Double guessing the OP is not appropriate. Please restore it to bottom of the desk ASAP and link from the original heading. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a question of international bill collection practices. Also, your text: "...including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations" makes it sound like it was a request for medical advice, which it certainly was not. I restored. StuRat (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Xmas Refdeskers!

...and...oh! It looks like Santa has dropped down your virtual chimney! Here is your present! (My son and I were recruited as elves - we wrote it specially for the occasion)

Xmas SameGame

See Also: Samegame

(It works in Firefox, Safari & Chrome - but it's rather slow in IE)

SteveBaker (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Very nice, Steve. I particularly like the "family" mode. Merry Christmas to you. Rockpocket 07:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That 'family mode' is actually REALLY hard to play - it's tough to spot patterns. I think 'lego mode' is hardest though (and there is a teeny-tiny bug relating to where you click on the bricks that means you sometimes click the wrong thing...argh!). I was going to add a 'Wikipedia' mode with Wiktionary, WikiCommons, etc logos...but they are all copyrighted. Gah! SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Santa sans frontiers! Merry Christmas to ye Bakers all refdeskers, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all at the RD. May the next year continue to answer our questions. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

new years resolutions: cite sources, cite sources, cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My resolution is to "do unto others, before others can do unto me". :-) StuRat (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[[to]]

I was typing that and when i pressed preview, it didnt blue link. Post this on bugzilla please, because I don't have an account.96.53.149.117 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Might just have been an error on that preview, seems to be working now. If you used the nowiki tags in your preview then it wouldn't blue link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Another (potential) request for medical advice removed

By JSBillings. Just giving a quick heads-up here in case he doesn't. I was actually about to remove it myself... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

need help.......... my child has been taken out of the country without my consent

To anyone who can help me.... My daughter who is 2 was taken out of the country on the 16th Dec 2008 without my consent. The female Judge granted this only two weeks before the due date. I had made things very clear through out my ordeal with the court system now for almost 2 years regarding the threats of her never coming back if she should ever be taken out of the country. Not only has this happened just recently but the courts have turned a blind eye to demands that she is to be stripped down and handed to me while i pick her up from her daycare centre. I have video recordings of all these matters and still the judge will not take into account what has been happening to her.. This story could go on to be truthful but I need some answers as to how this could happen and what grounds. The Judge also refused to put restrictions on my x partner and I do not know where she is or their itinrary's. Supposedly she is due back on the 8th Jan but what if she is not what do i do next... My lawyer isn't the best lawyer but I cant afford a decent one either. And I have never used this site before so sorry if its in the wrong place

forjustice77 Perth WA

Erm, I believe that this is a wrong place to post. Sorry. E Wing (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and this is the reference desk talk page. There may be some helpful articles such as child custody or Parental child abduction, but even the best information available here is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Nimur (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi FJ77, for free legal advice in Perth try this search[9]; for free preliminary legal advice in all areas of law, the Women’s Law Centre WA Inc. Phone: (08) 9272 8800. Legal Aid where you are is the Citizen’s Advice Bureau Legal Service 25 Barrack Street Perth WA 6000, and for more legal advice options, contact the Law Society: phone numbers here[10]. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice request removed

Diff of removal, just for the record — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Trolling on the Language desk

Just a note, 68.127.228.70 (talk · contribs) is actually Lysdexia (talk · contribs), who was banned many years ago. I suppose the IP should also be blocked if anyone would like to bother with the effort. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. bibliomaniac15 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)