Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

Misc is not a dumping ground!

Is it just me or are there more and more questions that really should go elsewhere? I have been moving them to Science, Entertainment, etc. Once I was told off for doing so (by the OP); no one else has, but no one else has been helping me move Qs. I don't think Miscellaneous should be used as a dumping ground, not least because searching for answers in the archives is done by section, and future researchers will look in Science for science Qs. So: am I wrong? Should I just let them sit? Or will anyone else start to move inappropriately placed Qs too? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the section remains and it's clear to the original poster that and where their question has been moved, I don't see any problem with moving questions. The intelligent editors who provide good answers at, say, the computing desk may not bother to look at the misc desk for computing questions so you're also doing the questioner a favor.

Be sure not to chastise people who put their question in the wrong desk. Most likely they just weren't sure about where their question would go. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw you doing that like a busy beaver, and I thought it was good of you. I'm too busy tying my own shoelaces together and letting the water out of my rowboat by knocking holes in the bottom to help with that right now, though. I'm thinking the OP might feel better about it if there were a few ruffles and/or flourishes instead of a bare "Moved to X", maybe something like "Question moved to the X Desk, where it will receive attention from volunteers more knowledgeable in related fields than would be found here." -Milkbreath (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes my reasons aren't or they're minimal - it's weird when you have to supply reasons (eg: so your question gets noticed! to get the best answers!) but it's the "I-thou" element sometimes lost in terse refdeskerie, and though I love terse text, it's your pick. It was getting out of hand, so I thought it a good effort. Even the Help Desk gets orphans wandering in (though currently they're only recommending the poster moves it or answer anyway). Funny how the waves of whatever are thematic. Currently it's desk mixing, jeez  : } Julia Rossi (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support (esp. Julia for the barnstar of tidiness!). I like being compared to a busy beaver, chewing her way through the forest, reshaping the waterways of information flow! My comments on the moves were of the briefest and I hope they did not come across as biting or chastising. I completely agree with Ƶ§œš¹'s point, that better answers may thus be written, which is why I move them, equally with the wish to keep the Misc Deak clear. Julia, normally you are a model of friendly clarity, but here I am puzzled: what reasons, what thou, what was getting out of hand? And all of you, if you agree with me, please feel free to help out when you can. I've moved another just now. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just now realized that my comment could be construed as criticism. I was not trying to imply, and I don't think, that you (BB) were being rude, more like perhaps a tad too efficient for the especially sensitive types, which, as you probably know, I am not, so I didn't see the problem with my comment until now. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done this in the past and will support its continuance. Two questions:

• Is there a template to use, or shall we improvise as is the current practice? Though on second thought, a template would be of more use when removing (not relocating) an inappropriate query e.g. medical/legal/dental/vet.
• Ideally, the shift would provide an internal link to the new location (with pound-sign syntax directly to the topic), particularly as OPs are often unregistered editors and/or novices here.
  

-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend moving my questions from Miscellaneous to another desk. I confess that I sometimes deliberately post Entertainment-related questions there, because I dislike the low-traffic the Entertainment desk generates; I have come to expect better, more and faster responses from Miscellaneous. Sad but true.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... by doing so, for the sake of eliciting "better/faster/more" responses, this would seem to contribute to further neglect of the WP:RD/E by editors and other posters alike. Is this not detrimental to the RefDesk as a collaborative project for both types of contributors? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at the end of the day the Fat Man just wants his questions answered. You may wish to read about the time I proposed the elimination of the Entertainment desk for this very reason. It didn't go over well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brainybabe, just wandered in and saw your questions. "Reasons", sometimes bother to add them, sometimes don't; "I-thou": referring to the personal touch; "getting out of hand": more misplaced questions than usual; I get clunky and obscure when tired. On the whole when moving a glaringly out of place question, I try to keep it short, a touch friendly and give directions. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and re Fat Man's considerations, I usually leave familiar editors alone, though myself, I've landed on one desk thinking it was something else altogether. JR

Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj's letters to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh

I don't understand... three times (so far) with different (I guess) user names on hum desk. What's going on? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Now they've - B.Krishnakumar (Talk | contribs) - deleted the second one, which I tried to answer with links. Time out for me, then. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparent trolling removed

I removed this question [2] as it is the exact same question previously asked by a user who was banned for trolling User:Picture of a cloud [3]. Amongst the most suggestive piece of evidence that this user is trolling is the fact that 45 minutes after he asked it the first time, he had a sex change operation [4]. I guess she had another sex change operation and is back with the same problem but given his/her history Special:Contributions/Picture of a cloud & Special:Contributions/Image of water droplets I think we can conclude he/she's just a troll. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears User:Crazy joke was another one Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My Response

I haven’t been asking people to give their opinions or viewpoints, what they think. I mean, I haven’t been asking people to give their own personal private opinion, viewpoint, or beliefs about those things. I was just asking them to tell me about what a certain particular specific group, type, or form of people think about something. I was just asking about what a certain particular specific group, type, or form of people with a certain particular specific group, type, or form of opinion, viewpoint, or beliefs would think about a particular thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs)

Bowei Huang, I'm at a bit of a loss to know what issue you want to discuss. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Bowei Huang is referring to the rather non-enthusiastic response to this question. [5] As I recall the “One True Religion” question was placed on the desks and replied to at least twice. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise BH's talk page. Or maybe that's what you mean, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that groups, types and forms of people don't have opinions. Only people have opinions, and while they can try to summarise what they believe other people to believe, in the end they can only answer for themselves. SaundersW (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Is Sinebot upside-down in a ditch again? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He (she? it?) seems to have gone out-of-commission on 18 April. I left a note on the owner's page. From a bit of other discussion there, it looks like maybe another bot was running amok and whatever was done to resolve that might have affected our li'l Siney. Or I could be all wet. --LarryMac | Talk 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's apparently fixed - here --LarryMac | Talk 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually notice it missing earlier, probably should have done something about it, not it matters :-P Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know, don't anthropomorphize the 'bots. They hate that. --LarryMac | Talk 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions lately

Is my calendar wrong for not pointing out that this must obviously be international existentialism and religion week? Dismas|^(talk) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your calendar should tell you that last week were the death-anniversaries of Sarte and de Beauvoir. There should now be a brief downturn followed by another spike for Kierkegaard's birthday. Algebraist 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Algebraist, you're forgetting Heidegger's demise! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not for ages yet, no? Algebraist 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, about five weeks hence, some three weeks after Kierkegaard's birthday! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Semen question

I don't think it was appropriate to remove that question. The questioner did not ask for medical advice (he didn't even say he had the issue he was talking about!) and none had been given (except the vague "consult a doctor," which can hardly be frowned upon). I think it is highly inappropriate, though sadly common lately, to simply remove such questions, which relate to medical issues, without even making an attempt to form consensus on whether they construe requests for medical advice. All it was was a request for information, which was provided. Please try to keep in mind the negative effect on reference desk users that these deletions have. For all we know, the guy was simply curious. Anyway, I am restoring it - please do not remove it again, or such questions in the future, until a clear consensus is reached on whether they are indeed requests for medical advice (questions in which medical advice is explicitly solicited, on the other hand, can probably be reasonably removed - but only when it is explicit!). -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? The guidelines say to remove, not to ask first. It might be better to ask first, though I don't think so, but that is not the procedure prescribed. In fact, it seems to me that consensus was reached here not too long ago that to restore a question without discussion constituted something like edit warring. You see the problem, I'm sure: Editor A removes a question in a good-faith attempt to follow the guidelines. Editor B puts it right back up in defiance of the guidelines. Editor A feels shafted and has nowhere to turn except to remove again. And so on.

As for the question, to which it would have been nice if you had provided a diff, it was not a request for medical advice and should not have been removed. Neil gave a bad answer, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the question and responses that I removed ([6]) and have now re-removed. When someone writes "Is it normal for semen to be yellow, every time?" they're describing a symptom (discoloured semen; recurring problem) and asking for a prognosis ("is it normal..."). Yes, it's on the edge of what constitutes 'medical advice' around here, but my removal wasn't unreasonable—and shouldn't have been undone without prior discussion.

The question – which did receive some neutral, informational answers – was drawing a number of responses offering possible diagnoses and prognoses (ranging from 'maybe nothing, it's just too much coffee' to 'possible infection'); a problem that seemed unlikely resolve itself. The poster has been referred to medical professionals who will now be able to answer his question thoroughly and clearly. He's not going to get a better answer from us than he can get with Google or a reading of our article on semen; there's no point to leaving the question there for armchair doctors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was obviously a medical information question, not an medical advice question. If question had said "my semen" that would have been a medical advice question - but it didn't say that, so removal was inappropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking for technicalities that let us disregard the apparent intent of the question. Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk. Friday (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One also must apply a bit of common sense. The account that asked this question was created today ([7]) and managed to figure out how to create a new section on the Desk, type, and sign his question a scant single minute later: [8]; it's still his only edit to Wikipedia. It's not credible to attribute these actions to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Either the question is being asked by someone who is a regular editor embarrassed about his own symptoms, or the question was posted by someone who was trolling the Desk and wanted to ask a (*giggle giggle*) 'naughty' question. The 'simple request for information' explanation just doesn't seem plausible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a merry-go-round, isn't it? I've been here long enough now to have seen a full cycle, I think. The next thing someone will say is "Then the question was removed for suspected trolling and not for violating med advice. " Sure, the question doesn't pass the sniff test, but by strict construction of the medical advice guidelines and assuming good faith, it's OK. My last word is I don't care much whether this one stays or goes. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But one must also read the question as asked and one must not assume bad faith and cry "troll" just because one sees the word "semen". Gandalf61 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If a question doesn't (explicitly) ask for advice but gets it anyway then the person who provided the advice should be chastised, not the OP.

Btw, what happened to reporting all removals on this page? This borderline case in particular.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This question was very mistakenly removed. There is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia which justifies this. It should be replaced immediately. Please remember in the future that medical themed questions are allowed here. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is it not possible to refactor a question and its responses to move it away from being "medical advice" and towards being "about the science"? Plus adding a standard - please discuss the science and not the medical aspects template (if one exists)? Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was in error in removing it, although our current policy strikes me as rather bizarre. But I think at this point it's fair to say there's consensus to restore it, right? And seriously people, come on, doing all this ridiculous detective work to try and determine the guy's "true motivations" is absurd. That's not our job, and strikes me as a violation of WP:AGF. The guy asked for general information, we provided it. That's the function of a reference desk. If he chooses to treat this information as a medical diagnosis, in spite of our disclaimer, specific warnings not to by responders to the question, and what should be common sense, so be it. This "remove first" policy is ridiculous in cases like this, and results in the question getting no responses while it's on the bottom of the page, usually a question's most-viewed period. Ask yourselves - is this policy making the reference desk better or worse for its users? Anyway - can we restore it now? Ugh. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you restore it, do so to the bottom and redo the main timestamp with a note. Personally, I don't think it is worth restoring. Better for someone else to ask the same question in a non-medical way, and then point the original questioner to the new question, leaving the old question blanked with a link to the new question. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worth restoring why? I am sure the questioner would disagree. And how would you propose asking it in a "non-medical way?" The majority here seem to feel that it was asked in a "non-medical way" already, seeing as he doesn't ask for treatment suggestions/specific diagnoses, or even say that the question is anything other than theoretical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve restored the question at the bottom of the page per consensus. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"technicalities"

Per "We shouldn't be looking for technicalities that let us disregard the apparent intent of the question. Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk." -- I must respectfully disagree. I think it's fine to look at the "apparent" intent, and to ignore the possibly-different "real intent". Three times now during these (yes, sadly cyclical) discussions I have posted this opinion:

If we suspect that the questioner might be seeking advice, but if the question has been carefully crafted as a request for information or as a hypothetical question, we can answer it on its face, and not get paranoid about possible ulterior motives.

[see here, here (now archived here), and here (now archived here)]

No one has ever disagreed, so I have assumed that this interpretation matches consensus. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found that a small but vocal group insists that we must follow the absolute letter of the question and avoid using any common sense, and that some of the battles aren't worth fighting. The interpretation that you've presented –

If we suspect that the questioner might be seeking advice, but if the question has been carefully crafted as a request for information or as a hypothetical question, we can answer it on its face, and not get paranoid about possible ulterior motives

– reads to me as

We can be as cavalier as we wish about giving out information likely to be faulty, risky, or harmful if taken at face value, as long as we can weasel out of any ethical responsibility by saying 'It wasn't explicitly stated that the OP was asking for advice....

I keep hoping that Wikipedia – and its Wikipedians – are a better lot than that, but there are times my faith is sorely tested. I note that since the question has been restored, the only new answer has been unsourced, wild-ass speculation that sperm colour relates to sperm count. Well done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to rephrase my interpretation, then, because that's certainly not the reading I have in mind. (In particular, as others have noted, we shouldn't be offering advice, period, regardless of how a question is worded.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'd originally written was a hypothetical objection (to a policy that permitted hypothetical and informational questions), and my response:

• "If we accept abstract or hypothetical questions, all someone who wants improper advice has to do is couch their question as one, and they'll trick us into giving it."

Yeah, well, but: so what. That proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that they do thoroughly understand the risk of taking unsolicited advice from strangers, and that they have pretty unambiguously assumed all that risk for themselves. We don't have to (and, at least in my opinion, shouldn't have to) feel guilty or immoral or as if we've taken a risk by answering such a question; we ought to be able to Assume that the ostensibly-hypothetical question was asked in Good Faith. [9]

Here (i.e. in the thread above), someone had said, "Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk." I disagree: our goal should be to avoid giving medical advice at the ref desk. (And I hope this doesn't sound like a sophist distinction.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair, Ten. A request for information should be met with information subject to the normal RD scrutiny. Nearly every question may receive faulty, risky or harmful responses but nobody runs around removing them. Like I said above, it would be wrong to provide advice to a question that didn't ask for it.

Moreover, Steve said nothing about "cavalierly" providing risky information.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. If somebody asks for information, give 'em information. Don't try to second-guess why they're asking -- that's OR. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Zain and Steve. An assumption that the questioner has no hidden intentions and the question means just what it says is not "cavalier" or a lack of common sense - it is simply the application of WP:AGF. This is the stance we should always take by default, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. If anyone disagrees with WP:AGF they should take their opinions to the appropriate discussion page, rather than belittling other editors here. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the size and vocality (is this a word?) of the group insisting on avoiding common sense:

There were 9 participants to this thread before my previous post. 5 of them were in favour of keeping the question versus the 4 who weren't. The 5 made 7 posts (1.4 per person) and the 4 made 8 (2 per person).

I excluded SDedelus' restoration notice and Elmer's most recent post in which he merely defended a point he had previously made.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd put in my last word, but this is a new sub-topic. I don't want to be lumped in with the anti-common-sense crowd. The question read "Is it normal for semen to be yellow, every time?" I would not have answered at all, because it's obvious to me that somebody just wanted to use the word "semen" in public, for some reason not having to do with the quest for knowledge. But I've put up with a lot worse shit than that around here trying to remain Wikismurfy. Now, if we're going to remove questions like this one, great, I'm all for it, and I've got a few in my sights right now, but where does it say we can? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If I walk into my public library and say to the Real World Professional Reference Librarian (1)"I have been having severe headaches and blurred vision. Might I have a brain tumor?" She will not give me any medical advice, but will urge me to see a doctor. If I say(2) "I am looking for information about the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors" or (3)"I am looking for information on the diagnosis and treatment of headaches" she will give me the names and call numbers of medical books, after determining whether I want hardcore medical books or books written for the general reader. There should be no more absolute prohibition here against answering questions 2 and 3 than there is at a Real World library. It is not assuming good faith to delete a properly worded question. Edison (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question removal

twice now the same question has been removed. I have reverted that removal twice because amongst the "chat" or "diatribe" I believe there is a genuine question buried in there about the OP's difficulties with Microsoft's products (in particluar Word). Can another way be found to remove the undesirable parts of the question without removing the whole discussion? Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The OP is not unfamiliar with the ref desks, and has gone on record as stating "I ask questions that interest me. Or make me think hmm. I really could care less if they are questions others don't find interesting." ([10]). IMO, the removal should stand and he can be directed to ask a question about Word on the Computing Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone gone to his talk page to explain to him how to ask a question? -- kainaw™ 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, no I have not referred Cardinal Raven to pose his question over at WP:RD/C (pure laziness on my part). Regarding the question here, perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, so delete if you must. Astronaut (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

poor management

the way you run your section of wikipedia makes it hard to tell what is or isn't vandalism and detracts from vandalism patrol. twice tonight reasonable assumptions of vandalism have resulted in accidental reverts. if you're going to have anons and new users running around dumping large sections of text into the wikipedia name space then they should label their edits clearly with proper edit summaries. same thing goes for bots going around blanking large swaths of text--Heliac (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The bot you refer to, User:Scsbot, has been archiving the Reference Desks for quite some time now, is a registered bot, and does leave edit summaries. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did this question slip by?

See this diff. This question is about the human body (the eyes) and clearly is about the questioner's eyes - not the anonymous "some person's eye". Using the definition that others have repeatedly used to flag "medical advice" questions for deletion, this is clearly medical advice. The questioner is asking a question about the function of his eyes. However, it wasn't deleted. There were no warnings about asking for medical advice. I believe that this is an example of what I believe one of those borderline cases. If the test that I propose is used, this is clearly not a request for medical advice. How does the test work? It is very easy. Read the question. Think of a proper answer to the question. Does that answer include medical advice, a diagnosis, or a prescription for treatment? If not, the question is not a request for medical advice. You don't even have to know the correct answer, just the form of a proper answer. For this one, the proper answer is something like, "The thingamabob in a normal eye senses anything touching it. The other whatchamacallits are not very accurate at sensing things touching it." No advice, diagnosis, or prescriptions. This must not be advice. -- kainaw™ 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up. First off, I hope we all can agree that we are unavoidably using our reading skills, common sense, and reason every time we interpret a question, whether we agree with the guidelines or not. I don't think it's borderline, but I do think it's interesting how it has slalomed cleanly past every pitfall, and not deliberately or T-wordily. "Object in eye" is, strictly speaking, a medical condition. If he had asked whether he should try to suck it out with a vacuum cleaner, the question would have had to be removed. If he had asked how to get it out at all, gone. If he had asked whether he could expect any long-term effects from it, gone. What he did ask was equivalent to "Whenever I touch a certain spot on the roof of my mouth with my tongue, it tickles like crazy. What is that?" Let's face it, eyelash in eye is a normal event in human life, and the querent only involved himself to make it clear what he was talking about—the anatomy of the superficial nerves of the eye. It wasn't about "object in eye" because he would have gotten to the same place by describing how it feels to touch the eyeball with a finger. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Archival problem?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/January 2008 is missing links to January 23rd. Looking at the history, the bot just skipped that day. Any ideas why? --Masamage ♫ 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot properly created the archive and removed the content from the active page, and simply failed to add the links to the archive directory. Looking at the bot's contributions for January, it looks like the miscellaneous page is the last page in the RD portion of its archival run, and creation of the links is the last part of archiving each RD. So all it did was forget the very last RD edit. The archive certainly exists, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 23. Maybe ask Steve to do a special little run for that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm working on it, but I was delayed by the shenanigans just above. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "special little run" done. (As it happens, the bot has flags to do just one selected step, and for a historical page, so other than discovering that it was oldid=187146994, the rest was easy.)

(For the curious: evidently there's some way for a submitted edit to fail that the bot doesn't notice. It knows about edit conflicts, and database lockage, and server errors, and several other problems, but every once in a while, WP just quietly ignores one of its edits. The bot has double-checks, based on article size, for the delete-text-from-the-RD-page step and the create-the-daily-archive step, but not for the augment-the-monthly-index step, which is harder. So it missed this problem. Thanks for pointing it out, Masamage.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate question

Here's the diff. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Trolls to be eliminated on sight. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding email addresses

According to the guidelines, you are not allowed to provide your email address. What about providing someone else's email address in response to a question? Has this been discussed? Here's the diff that got me thinking about this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not likely a person's email address. It is a PR email address. It is designed for the public to use to send various questions to the administrators of the website. So, in this case, it is a matter of providing an email address to a person to use the email address for the email addresses intended purpose. If the answer gave out a specific person's email address (ie: [email protected]), then I would have a completely different answer here. -- kainaw™ 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding removals

Sorry to pester you guys but I have one more question. Has any consensus been reached regarding the removal of a question by the OP after a response has been given? See this. Seems kinda unfair to the person who provided a decent response. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we actually have a policy that covers that, far more often than not people simply ask questions and never make any sort of response or affirmation that they're even aware of the answer. At least when they take the time to come back and remove the question it provides confirmation that they've seen the answer. Doesn't really come up very often, but personally I'd like to see questions remain in place to maintain the integrity and completeness of the archives. --VectorPotential Talk 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia standpoint, no, they don't own their question and have no right to remove it and its responses. But realistically, it shows that they received an answer or answers that they were satisfied with so chose to remove the question. Removal of questions is a sensitive issue here, but as long as the person removing the question is the person who posted it, I have no objections. HYENASTE

That argument doesn't seem to cover the person who replied. If they remove before a reply, fair enough, but not when someone spends time replying, then they're affecting someone else's post. Then it's blanking. If people commonly wiped a question once they had an answer we wouldn't have much in the way of archives... would we? I for one wouldn't be thinking, that's good, they're happy because it's gone now, let's have another go – not. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:TALK, which I think applies here: "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing."

I'd say we are inclined to even undo such removals with a note on the OP's talk page but that might be too much. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this question is wonderfully vague and possibly homework/soapbox-ing I'm not sure that it should have been removed, even by the original poster. It wasn't offensive, silly or a request for legal/medical advice. Itsmejudith's answer was helpful and I agree with VectorPotential - there's no point of archives if a question is deleted after it is answered (even if it isn't answred satisfactorily). Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another archival problem

Something funky going on here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/April 2008#April 24. --Masamage ♫ 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, but that doesn't explain why or what something funked up. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot goofs up and does that every once in a while (you'll see anther one on April 20), but, slacker that I am, I've never managed to investigate and fix it. :-( (Thanks for the edit, Julia.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Didn't mean to be hard on the bot, just meant that tech-wise didn't know the cause. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia! No probs. The bot did funk/goof up. (And I'm the techie who wrote it, and I still don't know the cause, either...) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read somewhere that "errare humanum est", can we now assume that "errare machinum..." or "...botum est" ? And, if so, would it not imply that the Technological Singularity is just a bunch of incompetent AI critters stuffing up the universe even faster than we humans have achieved this on a smallish planet ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "smallish"? It's the largest inhabited planet we know of! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

...and the smallest. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Touché! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am just a humble visitor on this planet from outer space and do not wish to brag, but mine is muuch, muuuuch bigger than is yours. Mind you, due to the enormous gravity back home we can´t really get it up and are becoming extinct... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spamfilter

Hi, I tried to ask a question but a link further up on the page blocked me from posting. I therefore edited the entire page instead of just the section and garbled the link. Sorry, but I saw no other way. I hope an admin can restore the link (it was in the "quilling" section"). Naturally, I can't mention what it was here because it would have my post blocked but I suppose it's in the editing history -- the edit was just a minute or less ago. Jørgen (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

by the way, this was on wp:rd/m and not this page. Of course. Now noticing that the talk is common for all refdesks. Jørgen (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What an odd choice for a domain name to add to the spam blacklist. Kind of makes me wish the blacklist could give actual reasons why something is on the list.--VectorPotential Talk 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have been added to the local blacklist, must have been on meta.--VectorPotential Talk 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I take it back, it was added in this revision. Since there was no edit summary pertaining to this addition I'm going to investigate this a bit. I'm sure there was a good reason, but this has made me curious. --VectorPotential Talk 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (warning very large page). I think it was added because a user is spamming by creating user pages with links including that site but I'm not sure. BTW, you can use www.mypaperquilling. com or similar to get around the black list [11]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One true religion is back

User:Bowei Huang is back with another question about the one true religion on the hum desk. After[12] above, is there a step two? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could me missing something but (IMHO) it looks as though the OP is saying/asking the following:

• He has encountered christians who believe that Christianity is the only path to god/heaven (or whatever).
• Do these zoroastrianists believe the same thing? Do they claim to have evidence supporting these beliefs?
• Don't analyse these claims.

I can't see the problem here. If someone has a decent source they should link it, if not, ignore the question. But like I said, I could be missing something. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw his/her question on the Misc desk. The first question is silly and the second one is inappropriate. I've replied but I won't mind if the entire thread is removed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered the first question with a straight bat, unaware that this was a persistent line of questioning. I have no objection to removal of my response if the questions are becoming problematic. Rockpocket 11:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how things go, but this user was warned back in Feb (on BH talk page) and kept coming via the ip address as well. I don't feel strongly either way, but it's a pity to keep feeding what by now has soap flakes all over it. Probably needed to be followed up since the warning. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New approach to legal/medical advice

Our current approach to questions that appear to ask for legal/medical/(insert licensed profession here) advice is to delete the question and all of its answers. I don't think this is a very good one—it leads to all sorts of disagreements about what is or is not a "legal advice" question, it alienates potential question-askers (who are sometimes asking perfectly good questions), it often ends up clogging up the question/answer section with all sorts of RD-specific debates (does this violate policy, etc.), and in the end I don't think it's helpful to anyone or good for the working environment of the Ref Desk. I also think it is one of these policies that will inevitably err on the side of being too strict and conservative, because the supposed arguments against the "legal advice" questions (OMG WIKIPEDIA WILL GET SUED!!) provoke more fear than the opposite position (OMG PEOPLE WILL NOT GET ANSWERS AND WE'LL END UP HATING EACH OTHER AND BICKERING!!), even though the latter case is certainly more likely than the former case (and does more harm over the long-term of the Ref Desk), in my opinion.

So here's a suggestion: Let's not nix the questions. Let's nix the answers.

Let's say you see a question that says something simple like, "My eye hurts, what should I do?" The answer should not be "We can't answer questions like that." The answer is, "Go see a doctor," or "There are many reasons it could be hurting, ranging from the trivial to the very serious. It's important that you see a professional, who will be able to examine it and give an informed answer, unlike anyone on the internet." Answers which suggest ad hoc medical solutions should be deleted and the person who suggested them should be told not to offer them up. Perhaps a little warning could be put on the question: "This question appears to solicit medical advice; any answers which give medical advice will be deleted."

What about "legal advice"? If we get a question like, "A cop searched my car without a warrant, is that legal?" the answers could be mixed—good answers would point out that (in the US), there are certain ways in which a police officer can, in fact, search a car without a warrant (e.g. if they are given probable cause). That is not a "legal advice" answer. A bad answer would say, "You should claim X and Y and Z on the stand, and sue his ass" or whatever. Those should be deleted. An even better good answer would point out, "The best person to talk about the legality of this issue in your specific case is a lawyer, because only someone well-trained in criminal justice is going to be able to make determinations about the specifics in this instance, e.g. whether or not a judge and jury would find this legal or not."

This answer-centric approach puts the burden on us, the answerers, not the questioners. I think it would be an easier system to enforce and lead to a lot less ill-will. I also think it would be more useful, on the whole—it is better to say "I'm sorry, no one on here is going to be able to answer that, please talk to a professional" than it is to delete a question entirely.

And I think it would avoid the situations in which someone ignorant of a given subject area declares something to be "legal/medical advice"—in the sense that it would endanger Wikipedia to give an answer—when anyone with a little more knowledge could sort it out. "Are names from a 100 year old census copyrightable in the US?" (to use one example currently on the Misc desk) is as non-legal-advice a question for someone even moderately versed in copyright law to answer as "Do my lungs have something to do with getting oxygen into my blood supply?" would be a non-medical advice question to someone who knew basic anatomy.

What do you think? Sorry to go on and on. But I think this is something we should think over. I think some people have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to deleting questions of this sort, and I think it doesn't do a lot of good. I think having a policy like the one I outline above would make this a lot easier to enforce and also avoid more situations of over-eagerness to classify things as "medical" and "legal" advice. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there will still be bickering about whether a deleted answer actually constituted medical or legal advice. For what it's worth – before you joined the Desk, Captain – we did try responding to requests for medical advice with advice to seek appropriate medical care. Unfortunately, we're unable to educate and train every person who comes to the Desk and attempts to answer questions. These helpful but misguided souls will attempt to offer diagnoses and treatment suggestions even when explicitly advised not to do so. ("I didn't offer a diagnosis, I just said what might be wrong with him; that's okay, isn't it?") The only way we've found to stop the helpful newbies is to remove the questions entirely.

As well, the proposed approach approach ensures that answers offering medical or legal advice are likely to remain in place for minutes, hours, days, or possibly forever—it's would be extremely time-consuming to have to screen the Desks for legal or medical advice on a regular basis. Pulling a question seeking medical advice once is much more effective than removing each and every answer to that question as it appears.

We're a fast turnover environment. My own casual examination of performance last year indicated we responded to two-thirds of all questions asked on the Science Desk in under an hour (see Image:Questions Answered Science Ref Desk.gif).. It's quite likely that advice will be read and the harm from incorrect or dangerous advice will already be done long before anyone gets around to removing that advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another advantage of Captain's proposal would be that questioners would have a chance of seeing what inappropriate questions look like. Also, if they ask a question and the response is "we can't give medical advice" they may respond with a clarification or alteration of their question to make answering it okay.

But TenOfAllTrades's caveat is important. I guess we'll keep things the way they are. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Ten on this one. To summarise your reasons for not removing requests for professional advice:

1. Disagreements around what is or isn't "advice"

2. Alienates the OP

3. It may have been a good question

4. It clogs up the desk

5. Not helpful

6. Not good for the RD's working environment

Numbers 1,3 and 4 are mitigated (to zero IMO) if all removals of requests for medical advice are reported here. Now I'm not sure if this always happens but current practice (as far as I understand it) demands it. One would have to go through the history of each desk and in the absence of edit summaries, determining whether a removal went unreported would be impossible. I certainly HOPE that all removals (of requests for professional advice) are reported here (not on the desk itself).

Regarding number 5, I agree that the removal doesn't really help anyone but we would be doing the OP a great disservice if we exposed him/her to potentially dangerous advice from an over-zealous answerer.

As far as 6 is concerned, I am of the opinion (and the guidelines are with me) that the RD isn't an appropriate place to request (or provide) professional advice. So I don't think the working envronment is hampered by this. I may have misunderstood what you meant by this though.

Which leaves us with number 2. Unfortunately the current system is not perfect and alienation of the OP is a problem we have to deal with. A message on his/her talk page might help with this. I don't however think that it is enough of a problem to warrant such a paradigm shift.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My two bits is to identify the information-seeking part of the question and put forward anything wikipedia at least, has to offer. It's different from suggesting personal solutions, applications, or points of view that might constitute advice. Giving references or links comes down to information, asare are pointers to other links, for instance, official sources that the OP can't find otherwise. Another thought is that OPs don't always know how to ask for what they want, but being told where to look or where else to ask is helpful. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Captain Ref Desk. Leaving legal or medical questions viewable will not get Wikipedia sued, but answering them could. We should remove specific "advice", but the OP's question should remain with a small note about not giving legal / medical advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.74.154 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades already explained that if blatant requests for advice are left on the desk, nothing stops a "misguided soul" from providing incorrect advice.

If, however, there isn't a blatant request for advice there would be no reason (or impulse) for said soul to provide said advice which is why I think that Julia Rossi might be on to something here. So if a question asks for information and advice, we remove the part asking for advice and provide the information asked for (some editing may be required). If a question asks for advice only, we edit it into a question for information and provide the information. As long as people are prepared to do the extra work, I think this is an excellent idea! It certainly helps with problem number 2 and everyone (including the OP) should be satisfied. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the substance of another user's post has always been highly frowned on, though (and I don't see Julia suggesting this at all). — Lomn 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were the OP and had to choose between having your question removed or edited, which would you choose? I see now that she didn't but reading her post made me think about this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I may have poorly described what I meant (perhaps "edit" is the wrong word). I wasn't suggesting we put words into the OP's mouth. Something to the effect of:

User:So-and-so requested medical advice. The RD cannot provide advice but it can provide information (Insert request for information here) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

is what I'm suggesting. But I do realise that it would require someone actually doing this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Takes care of things. Only have to decide what to do about the well-meaning advice contribs, now. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this, but I feel that I must note how well it was accepted in the past. I told a user who asked a question that he should simply ask for information. Do not include personal information, medical history, and all that stuff. Just ask for information. I was attacked for trying to help users trick the RD into giving advice. That led me to proposing the following: "When answering medical (or legal) questions, only give information. If you cannot answer the question by only giving information, then you are giving a diagnosis or advice. In that case, the question is asking for a diagnosis or advice and doesn't belong on the RD." The response to that was that nobody can agree on what the difference between "information" and "diagnosis/advice" is, so it solves nothing. -- kainaw™ 13:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have spent my life working outdoors in the sunshine. Now I've discovered a black spot on my skin. What could it be? Mellow Gnome 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mellow Gnome requested medical advice. The RD cannot provide advice but it can provide information. Liver spots are blemishes on the skin associated with aging and exposure to ultra-violet radiation from the sun. They range in color from light brown to red or black, and are very common in people from the age of 40 onwards, particularly in those who spend time in the sunshine. IANAD 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the big problem. Providing information on liver spots is a diagnosis that the problem is a liver spot. Claiming that you are simply providing information is not enough. The information must be asked for. That question did not ask for any information on liver spots. It asked for information about a "black spot on my skin". -- kainaw™ 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Per Kainaw, the sample response illustrates the problem quite neatly: "We're sorry, but we can't provide you with a diagnosis. Here's some information on a possible diagnosis." This particular implicit diagnosis also puts the life of the questioner at risk; it may generate a false sense of security through the omission of potentially lethal etiologies like melanoma. The mere assertion that a diagnosis is purely "information" is insufficient—a diagnosis is a diagnosis regardless of what label one chooses to apply to it.

In some cases, the error or omission may not be so obvious as here, and – and this is key – the contributors to the Ref Desk are not qualified to nor capable of safely judging the limits of their knowledge of medicine. Without formal medical training and a proper patient history and physical exam, we are in no position to offer even possible diagnoses. We are an encyclopedia, not a walk-in clinic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Remove indent) How about this:
I have spent my life working outdoors in the sunshine. Now I've discovered a black spot on my skin. What could it be? Mellow Gnome 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mellow Gnome requested medical advice. The RD cannot provide advice but it can provide information. Helpful Contributor 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)</

See this for a list of skin diseases. IA also NAD 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The trick is trying to find a solution that doesn't give the "misguided souls" any reason to provide harmful advice and doesn't alienate the OP so that he/she may come back in the future with a better question instead of turning into a vengeful vandal/troll. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that that 'trick' still doesn't work. Referring them to the list of skin diseases presumes that their condition actually is pathological, when it might just be a dark freckle, an ink stain, or the aforementioned liver spots. Scaring the OP unnecessarily is still harmful. (That also ignores the problem that the list of skin diseases is likely to be incomplete, and that it's not particularly useful to the OP anyway—most of the diseases listed there don't present with dark skin spots, and there's no way to figure out which ones do without reading all of the linked articles.)

If someone is going to come back as a vengeful vandal or troll just because we refuse to diagnose their skin disorder – and instead politely refer them to appropriate experts – they're probably not mature enough to edit here anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that we're going to deny answering any question at all regarding human physiology and/or the legal system because we're going to get "sued" for saying "maybe you brushed against poison ivy". The day a judge and jury holds Wikipedia liable for giving medical advice is the day I pack my axe and move to Europe. Ziggy Sawdust 14:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Once more, this is not about not getting sued. It is about not doing harm.  --Lambiam 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

idle question

In the boilerplate section at the top of each Desk, where it says

• Do not provide contact information, such as your e-mail address, home address, or telephone number.

, what are those three wikilinks for? —Steve Summit (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A somewhat gratuitous use of wikilinks to enable the user to confirm these basic concepts. Not considered harmful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we expect every reader to read the instructions at the top of the page thoroughly – and to follow all the wikilinks there – so that they can participate fully and safely in the Reference Desks. These detailed and comprehensive instructions insure that we never get questions seeking homework solutions, requests for detailed medical advice, questions that can be answered by trivial uses of Google or the Search box, or posts that reveal personal information.

The occasional editors who doesn't follow our clear guidelines has no doubt had trouble because the sloppy creators of the header boilerplate have failed to provide explanatory links to homework, Internet, search engine, and question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of the words on the main RD page

On the index page type thing there are lists of what goes where underneath the subject title. Why is the order they are in... the order they are in? At the moment it seems sort of random, and for instance on the Entertainment list TV shows are after Video games even though video game questions are fairly infrequent on that desk.

Surely they should be in order of "importance" (although I know this will vary from person to person) or at least Alphabetial order?

The same could be said about the actual topics. I am fairly sure the Science desk gets more questions per day that computer questions for instance. I'd suggest something like Science, Maths, Language, Humanities on the top row (these are topics that seem fairly unique to the RD, I don't know many forums or anything that cover these topics) then Computing, Entertinment, Misc and Archives on the second row (because the first two have many other places people can go to, and Misc doesn't really fit anywhere, and Archives should obviously be last). What do you think?

TheGreatZorko (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

linking a question's main topic

If at all possible, I suggest wiki-linking one's first answer to the article on the main topic, unless the asker or someone else have already done so. Occasionally, we even get threads of extensive answers by multiple editors with links to all sorts of relevant articles, except for the main topic. (just one recent example, where I actually wanted to read the article: "The Crimes of Kaiser Bill"). Even if the article neither addresses the question nor contains any relevant information, links are useful to readers, and also to people who search the archives for old questions by hitting the "What links here function" on keyword articles.

I guess we sometimes also assume the key article has already been linked above, but this is often not the case. I would fix it on sight, but it is considered bad etiquette to weave links into other people's posts, be they querents or volunteers. Which is why I'm pointing it out here. A minor request, for those who care. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I seem to have developed a blind spot here. In giving my answer I assumed that the Kaiser had already been linked, which was clearly not the case. I would normally make these links as a matter of simple procedure. I shall now rectify the oversight, assuming this has not already been done. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong in the archives

Something is wrong in the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/May 2008 for the May 2nd section number 10. I don't know how to fix it. Could someone take a look? xxx User:Hyper Girl 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I fixed it but could someone please check. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/May_2008&diff=prev&oldid=211436149 xxx User:Hyper Girl 09:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The little botster left off the question title which you added; now it's all blue, looks okay to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

May 11 Missing

It seems that all the desks did not have May 11 added after midnight. All the questions are being entered under May 10, I'm not sure how to fix this. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just after going round and manually adding may 11th for each desk, but I'm guessing that there is a malfunctioning bot involved somewhere Fribbler (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the manual additions, Fribbler. The "malfunction" was merely that the manually-invoked bot did not get invoked for two days while I was on vacation (visiting my dear mother for Mother's Day). All should return to normal at 00:00 UTC tonight. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why, that was certainly amusing. But, say, what just happened on this ref desk? How was this acheived? Scaller (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit. Oh D'OH, I posted this on the discussion page rather than the actual page. Well, that means the vandalism is still not gone. If you don't mind my failure, I'd still love an answer. Pardon the ill placed question. Scaller (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, I found I could highlight the text, and look at the hidden text that way. The vandalism seems to be dealt with there, and I reckon this should yield me answers. Scaller (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't the only one to see the end of the misc. reference desk covered with some black writing ("pageeedia")? Scaller (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

April Trolls in May

I've removed a trolling Avril Lavigne question twice - first here, note the OP was an IP. This was then reposted to Language by "Doctor Dangerous" who I am having AGF trouble with to begin with, my removal here. Note also this section from the good doctor. --LarryMac | Talk 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the troll posts are coming from Tor exit nodes. Anybody want to help? --LarryMac | Talk 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on AN/I --LarryMac | Talk 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stop so you can't block my Tor. Now I'll begin with user names, and by god I have plenty of sleeper accounts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.70.197 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what checkuser is for. --Random832 (contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this all about? If that message above is really, this may be first contact with an alien species! --S.dedalus (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More like the billionth contact. bibliomaniac15 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, well, this is the first time I’ve seen a self confessed, unrepentant troll publicly state that they intend to continue their mayhem. Trolls usually rely on the pretext that they’re legit. users “just asking for information.” --S.dedalus (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first candidate: User:Seven seven and eleven - see this RD Q about AL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you lot make me laugh. Emac1 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the trolls, people, I'm out. --LarryMac | Talk 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked three five Avril Lavigne ref desk troll accounts - can we list them here as they appear? Any TOR IPs, list them also. I will block the lot on sight. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pikecatcher too. There were three of them arguing amongst themselves on Talk:Avril Lavigne. Reckon that this is one person doing it for the lulz, or have a bunch of guys come here on a mission from a webforum/one of the *chans? Has a checkuser been requested yet? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all coming in over TOR proxies, I believe. I have a feeling its one person but it's hard to tell without being a checkuser. I don't know if one has been requested. On the plus side, it's an easy way to spot troll sleeper accounts and TOR proxies. Neıl ☎ 12:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Terror toad blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rod summator‎ blocked.That one changed one of the transcluded templates (twice) so all of the Reference Desks were displaying an ASCII art picture instead of the needed navigation. -- Atlant (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He hit Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside, too; took I while to find because of all the pages the header is spread over. Algebraist 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is getting a bit out of hand. I am the Avril troll, but I only started this because I enjoyed reading the witty comments to the Avril questions. I am willing to stop my disruption of the reference desk, on the condition that I am allowed to ask one legitimate Avril question per day without it being removed. I think that is fair. I am also willing to provide a list of past and present sockpuppet and sleeper accounts that I have been using. Please note, I will communicate with you only through this account, and if blocked I will resume my disturbance with renewed enthusiasm. Hot JJ (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on asking the Avril questions here? Surely, there are fan sites that are more appropriate for this, albeit without the witty comments. (Btw, I accept your apology). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has such a vibrant and varied community. The most one can expect from yahoo answers or fan sites is "yes" "no" "lol I'd bang here" etc. Wikipedia offers a medium through which thoughtful answers are produced as a result of a Wikipedian's desire to provide an accurate and helpful reply. Hot JJ (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit I'm amused by your admission. I guess if you stop socking and stick to one account, I have no objections to your Avril questions, especially if you're willing to stop flooding the desks. I hope you do realize, however, that a lot of contributors are not that into tenacious perpetuation of ref-desk memes, and I for one will no longer be your circus pony. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. So the limit is one Avril question a day, from this account? Do I have an assurance that they will not be removed? Hot JJ (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you need to work on your negotation skills. No sir, it's not a done deal and there are no guarantees. You have but one mild don't-really-care approval, but I don't care if your Avril questions get removed either. The reference desk is neither your social laboratory, nor your playpen. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)Such assurance would be impossible to give because anyone can edit WP. Also, why were you not using the Ent desk? If I remember, most of the questions were on the Misc desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I will use the Entertainment Desk, unless the question is more relevant to science or language for example, in which case I will ask it there. But, can I at least have an assurance that Avril questions will not be subjected to a unfairly biased reaction, will be treated on an AGF basis and judged solely on their individual merit alone? Hot JJ (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User Hot JJ has been banned, and any additional sock-puppets of this user will also be banned. Please report suspected return appearances to the Administrator's noticeboard.

Atlant (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? He was being perfectly rational. Unblock him. Ziggy Sawdust 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That must be a usage of the phrase 'perfectly rational' with which I'm not entirely familiar. Good block, Atlant. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually do the ban, although I was certainly warming up to do it. (I did edit the former user's talk page, though, announcing the ban.) But for Ziggy Sawdust's benefit, let me just explain that we don't negotiate with disrupters as to how just how much of their disruption we'll tolerate. And lately, the Avril Lavigne gang has been doing quite a lot of large-scale disruption; perhaps Ziggy has not noticed all of it.

Atlant (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And now see these two threads below.

It's fine, Ziggy, to Assume Good Faith (indeed we're required to, of course); it's fine to give people the benefit of the doubt. But there comes a time... —Steve Summit (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Junk food discussion

User:Q Chris removed a paragraph I had written in the junk food discussion on WP:RD/M. I understand his motivation, but I feel that if User:FisherQueen's offensive (IMO) comment to the anon who began the thread is permitted, so should my response to FisherQueen. Ideally, the conversation never should have started, as the RD is supposed to be immune to debates. Should we just delete the whole section? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Diff showing the removal. The defense of "she's doing it, why can't I?" is never very persuasive. And no, the whole section should not be removed, assuming good faith toward the OP, perhaps he or she is preparing for a debate and there is plenty of factual content provided. --LarryMac | Talk 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FQ's response was perhaps coming close a 'personal attack' but was not one IMHO and in any case, was a meaningful response even if poorly worded. On the other hand, your comment was a clear violation of WP:NPA, added little to the discussion and so indeed should have been removed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

obscure meta-question

Anyone who's bored might derive some amusement from trying to figure out this question on my talk page. I know what ACSR is -- Atlant and I wrote the page after an RD discussion a while back -- but I can't imagine what the referred-to code words and animal names might be. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliet and Paris

<moved to miscellaneous desk here[13]>

Removal of questions

I posted a serious question on Humanities about the English Reformation, using an expression taken from a poem by Brendan Behan, which I assumed people here would have some knowledge of. I was wrong. It was removed by an individual who goes by the name of DigitalC. Is this your new policy, shoot first and ask questions later? By what right had this person to remove my questioon in such a rude and high handed manner? Is he your policeman? I think this is ATROCIOUS conduct, action taken in such an arbitrary way without any kind of consensus. I am sorry to go on but I am really ANGRY.Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

PS this person hs now sent me a note about assuming good faith, or something like that. Well, what about this assumption with regard to me? Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

PPS I see from the edit history of the humanities desk that he described my question as 'vandalism' prior to removal. What price now assumptions of good faith an civility? This DigitalC person has clearly taken it upon himself to play fast and loose with your protocols. Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, here is my take on this snafu. Your original question "Ballocks of Henry VIII - Was these the real cause of the English Reformation" looked odd because it lacked context and because it was the first edit from a new use account. On the other hand, DigitalC probably acted too hastily when they removed it - the question was not positively harmful or obviously in contravention of the Reference Desk guidelines. It would have been better if DigitalC had left a message on your talk page asking you to reword or expand the question. Alternatively, Digital C could have left a note on this talk page explaining the removal. Anyway, your new version of the question now provides context, which will help readers to give you a useful response, so everything is now fine.

As a general rule, when other editors do not do things in the way we would like, it is not because they are being deliberately rude or obstructive - it is more likely that they are tired, or in a hurry, or simply not aware of how things are usually done. When I get annoyed by other editors' actions on Wikipedia I find it helpful to read this essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing trolls' good questions

There were a fair number of good questions among the recent spate of questions from the Avril/Summer troll (under his/her various aliases). Most of these questions were copied verbatim from Scientific American and other Q&A sites but there were others (e.g. "Do worms have brains?"). Either he/she believes that posting good faith questions might reduce his/her chances of being blocked (for the rest of the questions) or he/she doesn't agree with the answers given on those sites. If we AGF then we assume the latter, in which case he/she should inform us that there is an answer and he/she just wants a second opinion.

I responded quite harshly to these questions (in particular the worms one to which I apologised) and I realise now that I was wrong to do so. Here's a removal of many of good questions. My question is: is it cool to remove these questions? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the one sensible reason for removal in cases like this is the desire to dissuade the repeat-posters by denying recognition. Though that approach makes sense, I think we should be careful when removing entire threads where people have invested time and brain power into coming up with good answers. Not only can it be confusing and discourteous to the affected volunteers, but these answers, if they're good, are also interesting to a wider community of readers, and having to remove them is a shame too. If you manage to nip repeated trollery in the bud (i.e. before anyone answered in good faith), I say go for it though. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, now that I look at these questions with a cool head, I see they're quite interesting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the questions were interesting -- maybe too interesting and polished -- but for me, it's not the questions quality it's the intent behind them. I hope there's space now for people who really do have questions, and need answers. Sorry if I haven't caught up with all this, it's been nuanced beyond belief by a troll who even impersonates people with literacy problems. Busy, clever and disruptive and a lesson to me. I can feel a pang if I've fed a bad-faith questioner and my stuff is gone, but the more important thing for me is people stopping their run on the desks -- that feels much better. And maybe the higher aim can bring us a new engaged editor. Who knows? I dream on,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking my calibration

I just removed this question from the Science desk, as it provides a set of symptoms (fatigue, dizziness) and seeks an explanation.

The original author restored the question, and I've now removed it for a second time. I think that this is a clear-cut request for medical advice of the sort that we don't – and can't – offer, but I welcome second opinions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Ziggy is describing personal symptoms, and the symptoms are described as out of the ordinary, Ziggy is not just asking for information on a medical topic, but asking for possible diagnoses to a specific case. Clear-cut in my view too. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a diagnosis, I was simply asking if anyone else had experience with this, I swear to God Almighty that I'm not going to take the answer seriously and/or sue Wikipedia. (when typing that line, my eyes moved across and it just happened again, lol) Ziggy Sawdust 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Post to Village pump on Refdesk etiquette

Here Algebraist 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

a word that describes a pictogram

Moved to language desk. Gwinva (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

avril

Why am I seeing to images of Avril Lavigne overlaying the Entertainment desk. It is not an edit to the page. It looks like a background image was changed - and it is overlaying the questions but not the sidebar or top links sections. Rmhermen (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw it too in the comp desk. Was going to fix it but couldn't find it. Was wondering what the heck and came her to discuss it but when reading you comment it occured to me it must have been in one of the templates and has already been fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Found it Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops wrong one Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Should these headers be protected? Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree (see below) Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it's on my watchlist. This is the second time this has happened. I thought he would be happy talking to himself on his own desk but apparently he's become bored again. I would suggest reporting all of his socks to WP:AN/I. I did it last time - I think someone else should have a go now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The same pics were decorating the Language desk. I couldn't find the right template to correct. Xn4 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Given the very large number of probably complicated templates, and the unlikelyhood that most of them should be changed by without discussion, shouldn't they be protected, or at least semi-protected? Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whooops looks like someone is ahead of us [14] Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Acalamari now semi-protected eleven template pages. I added them to my watchlist. In the off-chance that an IP editor wishes to see anything modified, I suggest posting requests on this page here though. And if anyone watching the pages does see a constructive suggestion posted on one of the templates' talk pages, I suggest moving it here too. I don't know how well-watched these templates are. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Leach of life avrilized one of the templates and got blocked. Full protection or dance of the chorus socks, until they're all spent? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

zzuuzz fully protected them as High-risk templates. [15] Show's over. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Tim The Aposhill

Seems the recent spate of St. John the apostle questions are from the same anon user who gave us the Tim Cahill q's. Just a note :-) Fribbler (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just got a double dose of parc so that when I questioned the aposhill being timcahill and politely did a good faith edit on top of it, I got a huge flag of AvLav all over my browser. Someone must be onto it. I hope, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WRT your recent AvLav-ing - who and where? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#St_John_the_Apostle} on the Misc desk, May 21 etc. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An end to the Avril Lavigne trolling

I am officially announcing that I intend to give up trolling and vandalism on the Reference Desk. I am the so called "Avril Troll" (by the way I really dislike that name, I'd prefer the "Avril Admirer" or something) but I've grown bored, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to think up new ways to disrupt the Reference Desk. I've had fun, and I thank Wikipedia for indulging in my Avril fixation. I guess this is testimony to the amazing work of the Wikipedians who sought to stop my mayhem, and who knows, maybe one day I'll be the one fighting the vandals. Anyway, thank you all, and Goodbye. -- The Avril Troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rightgoer (talk • contribs)

If you really really promise, you're stopping -- let me say that you have the skills and the energy to be a good editor here. Take care, bye-bye, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect my header now? Or give me sysop so I don't have to deal with these retarded frustrating restrictions. Full protection is a terrible idea that spits in the face of tens of thousands of valuable editors. .froth. (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one? It looks like it is only semi protected. David D. (Talk) 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Farewell, Avril-man. I didn't particularly enjoy your company (which should be a compliment to a troll), but I understand. I was once a troll myself. Take care. May our paths cross again someday. Ziggy Sawdust 07:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you're looking for quality trolling, try Conservapedia.

David, the eleven templates listed here are still fully protected. Lovely hyperbole there, froth, tens of thousands of editors who wish to chisel away on these templates, day in, day out, are now soaked in admin sputum. Did you even notice how things were getting out of hand? I'm not even opposed to semi- or even full unprotection, but surely there's no urgency. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess i didn't notice. Certainly a trol that has figured out to target the templates rather than the ref pages directly is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the full protection of high-visibility templates is to protect the largest and most valuable group who use Wikipedia: our readers. We'd rather not spit in the face of millions of visitors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one example: me and my low-tech laptop. The last few template-vandalizing images made me have to reboot my system twice. Seriously, froth, if you have any urgent changes to make, you can suggest them here and I'm sure you will find an administrator willing to make the amendments. For now we should wait with unprotection until the nonsense has gone away permanently (including announcements of going away). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? "my header"? Nobody owns anything around here. --LarryMac | Talk 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Julia that this guy has the skills to be a good editor - IMHO he was one of the most resourceful trolls ever. So referring to protection of the headers as a retarded frustrating restriction is unfair. Where are these tens of thousands of editors? Why can't they recommend changes to the headers here? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello refdesk people. I'm the admin who fully protected the templates, blacklisted some Avril images, blocked many Tor nodes and sockpuppets, protected several user talk pages, filed a checkuser request, and spent several hours in the process of keeping this page and the help desk open to readers and editors alike, all due to the escalation of this trolling. I haven't really closely followed the full story of this troll, there are many things we tolerate on Wikipedia in good spirit, but template vandalism and blocking use of the entire helpdesk system is completely out of order by any standard. There is currently an unacceptable risk that it will happen again, and in my view this risk will remain for some time so I won't be readily undoing my actions. Any admin can reverse any of my actions but in my opinion they would be mad to rely on a statement by someone who says they've stopped because 'it is becoming increasingly difficult to think up new ways to disrupt the Reference Desk'. That is not a statement of repentance. I will happily undertake any edit requests myself - please leave a note on my talk page - or there is a well established system for making such requests with the {{editprotected}} template. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)