Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Medical advice question removed at Science Desk

I removed a medical-advice question and its answers, (diff). Nimur (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

question about sickness removed at Science Desk

I agree with the above, but on the other hand, this edit was not justified. The edit contradicts the guideline at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines in two ways.

First, it uses a template that marks the collapse with "close request for medical advice". Not only is the section clearly not a request for medical advice, but the answer by StuRat says "I believe Jayron incorrectly removed this Q as a request for medical advice". This difference of opinion should have been discussed here. See WP:BRD.

Second, the edit summary ("The default position is not to give free medical advice, nor comments without links or references") misstates Wikipedia policy. W:RD/G says "General medical questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?') are fine." and "it is still helpful to contribute from your areas of personal expertise." There isn't a "no comments without links or references" rule in the guideline, and the requirement in the edit summary is higher than the standard for Wikipedia articles (WP:V), which is that all material must be verifiable, and all material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Nothing that StuRat wrote is likely to be challenged, and if someone does challenge statements such as "Genetic variation causes individuals, even in a family, to have different immunity to each disease" or "young children tend to be far sloppier with hygiene" we can easily give citations supporting them.

I am all for following the guideline about medical and legal advice, and I am fine with erring on the side of caution in marginal cases, but I am against inventing new requirements that are not found in our guidelines and shutting down conversation based upon these made-up requirements. As W:RD/G says, "Many people have their first Wikipedia experience asking a question at the Reference Desk and it is a good opportunity for us to build goodwill with the readers which in turn can help the encyclopedia." It does nothing to build goodwill when we don't follow our own guidelines or when we label something as a request for medical advice when it clearly is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP is asking for an explanation of his sickness--as far as we know it might be cancer, worms in his drinking water, or mental illness, none of which can or should we be commenting on, and the "response" is StuRat's usual off the cuff baseless opinionating on ever single question regardless of expertise or links and refs. There's no question here we can answer and no answer has been given. I am closing it again. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

First, did you even bother to read the question? He asked why he doesn't get sick. If he was "asking for an explanation of his sickness" (which he isn't), I would have agreed with your actions, and no doubt so would StuRat.

Second, you are attempting to enforce your view on this by edit warring rather than discussing and seeking consensus. It's WP:BRD, nor WP:BRRD. -- you are at 2RR now and if I decided to edit war myself (which I refuse to do), I have no doubt that you would instantly revert, putting you at 3RR. Please self-revert your last edit and seek consensus through talk page discussion.

Third, you did not respond to my comments about you making up new rules that are at odds with the actual guidelines. Are you willing to make a commitment to stop doing that? If, instead, you believe that your "no comments without links or references" rule is in the guidelines, please explain the basis of this belief. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP in that case asked why his family gets sicker more often than he does. No one here is qualified to answer that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No one here is qualified to edit Health#Self-care_strategies either, but nonetheless it remain editable. The issue is not whether anyone here is qualified to answer this question. We can find sources that cover the legitimate scientific question of how much effect genetics vs. environment have on general health. The issue is whether telling the OP about some of the known contributors to poor health or good health which are behavioral instead of genetic is giving him medical advice. Why is it that I can advocate things such as washing hands with soap and brushing and flossing teeth if I am editing Health#Self-care_strategies, but not if I am answering a question that isn't even close to being a request for medical advice? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter was requested. I have given this deep thought. My official position on this matter is this: Meh. I hope that provides the additional input everyone needs to resolve this issue. --Jayron32 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Best. Answer. Ever. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an actionable request for medical advice, that's for sure.

StuRat gave a fine answer, which remains despite the unnecessary hatting.

(To avoid confusion, I'm splitting this discussion off from the thread above it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can only assume that those people who thought it was a request for medical advice were unable to decipher the bad English from the OP. I took it to mean "Why do I get sick less often than the rest of my family ?", which is certainly not something you go to the doctor to determine ("You want to get sick more often ? Well, what you need is an injection of HIV !"). StuRat (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about μηδείς/Medeis. I noticed that she sees herself as the Enforcer Of The Rules, collapsing whatever she sees as being not allowed. The problem is that she makes up her own rules and edit wars to enforce them. For example, look at the rule she enforces in [1] and [2]: μηδείς/Medeis made up a rule that says that all responses must have citations. (the actual rule is that comments which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need citations. See WP:V.) and the second edit was a re-revert without discussion, which violates WP:CONSENSUS.

After Jayron32 (Motto: "Meh.") collapsed a discussion and StuRat reverted her and gave a good reason[3] μηδείς/Medeis ignored StuRat's explanation and re-reverted[4] rather than discussing.

When I posted the comment that starts this section and reverted his edit while urging her to discuss it here,[5], and with a UPPER CASE comment saying "PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE"; μηδείς/Medeis made a comment here and re-collapsed the discussion three minutes later.[6] For those keeping score, at this point she has been reverted twice by two different editors, and she is still using reverts to push his version. So I am seeing a refusal to follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, and a definite case of WP:OWNERSHIP.

The only remaining question is one that only μηδείς/Medeis can answer. Will she stop violating Wikipedia policy voluntarily, or will I have to bring this up at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U so that she has the choice of following Wikipedia policy or being blocked from editing Wikipedia? μηδείς/Medeis, I strongly urge you to stove edit warring and to discuss these issues here. I realize that, like most people who violate Wikipedia policy, you probably think that you are right. And I also acknowledge that you may be right and I may be wrong. If you stop reverting and discuss your actions, you may very well convince everyone here that I am wrong (and of course in that case I will accept consensus) Please talk it over with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still a medical question about his family, and no one here is qualified to give him advice on that point - only a doctor can do so. It never ceases to amaze me, how so many editors here are so eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are begging the question. You have not yet established that the rules were violated or that the section in question is asking for medical advice. It appears to me that the consensus so far is one editor agreeing with you and three disagreeing (2 to 3 = no consensus). Please don't accuse other editors of being "eager to violate the rules". That is an insult, and a clear violation of WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that some people are -- perhaps accidentally -- attempting to enforce a slightly different rule than we actually have. The official policy is: medical information okay, advice about your specific medical condition bad. But questioners have a tendency to mention themselves in, and even personify, what ought to be a perfectly abstract, hypothetical question. ("I was wondering"; "Suppose I ingested", ...) And then some responders tend to latch on to the personal pronoun in the question. So instead of "requests for advice about your medical condition are prohibited", we end up with people enforcing the non-rule that "questions in which you mention a medical topic and yourself are prohibited." —Steve Summit (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah give it up, Baseball Bugs. StuRat was right, it was nothing more or less than a request for information as to why some people (e.g. some members of his family) get sick more than others. Nothing wrong with that so move on. --Viennese Waltz 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think there are no users here that are eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice, then you have not been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't going to get out of the hole you have dug that easily. You didn't say that some random vandal is "eager to violate the rules". You said that I was. Again I tell you, before you make claims about why I violated the rules, you need to establish that I actually did violate the rules. Which I didn't, as four people have already told you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but still pretty sure) Bugs isn't talking about you anymore. He's probably got someone else specifically in mind. There are some users who do have an idiosyncratic and non-consensus view that there should be absolutely no prohibitions against medical advice at all on the reference desks. Those users have been reminded that they should not act on that view, and have recently stopped doing so. I don't believe Bugs is accusing you of being one of those users, merely that he is noting the existance of those people. I agree that bringing such an issue up here in the context of this discussion is a bit of a non-sequiter, but the core of his argument is truthful. There are people who don't believe in the "no medical advice" prohibition, and until a few months ago, they used to violate that rule with glee. It has died down, but the memory of the conflicts this caused has perhaps left some scars that Bugs is somewhat imprudently reopening here. Of course, he can speak for himself, and I may have misread the situation entirely, but in my assessment here I don't think Bugs is referring to you specifically. --Jayron32 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies to Bugs for misunderstanding him. I would like to add that I am 100% with him on keeping medical and legal advice out of any Wikipedia page. It's a no-brainer: the wrong legal advice can ruin your life and the wrong medical advice can kill you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayron has it figured right on all counts, and I apologize also for being so aggressive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to answer a question we can imagine the OP might have asked, but didn't. It's not our place to give unreferenced answers like StuRat's to any questions, whether they make sense or not, and it's not our place to assume that every question is inherently valid unless a US Supreme Court case rules it valid. In case of doubt we refrain from giving medical opinions. We are not qualified to tell the OP why his family gets sick. If anybody wants to take this to an ANI again, feel free--although the last several times their opinion was that the RD should be shut down-they just didn't act on it. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think that every response must have a reference. We have no such policy. And you seem to be the one who misread the Q. As for ANI, they don't care about the Ref Desk, so anytime you waste their time discussing it, they are bound to just wish it would go away. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς/Medeis, it is not your place to decide what the rules are. We have already established that your imaginary rules do not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and we have already established that you are willing to edit war to get your way. If I see you doing it again, I will take the appropriate steps to deal with your disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Medeis, can you please just shut the f**k up about ANI. you always do this, calling on this supposed higher authority to support your stance about how the Ref Desk should work. We exist because WE say so and as long as WE have a consensus that WE should continue. We are not here because of the lofty beneficence of administrators, and their collective opinion of the Ref Desk is as irrelevant as the Ref Desk's collective opinion of ANI. I know you have some history with ANI, and not usually on the right side of the fence, and that may have conditioned your attitude to them. Me, I've never had any sort of experience with ANI at all. Ever. So I wouldn't really know how they operate except in the broadest general terms. But I do know they don't have the power you constantly attribute to them. They just don't. Please get out of your head all ideas about "having us shut down" (your frequent threat) by ANI or any other organ of Wikipedia. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:Consensus. Someone who cares about the Ref Desk will be working to make its operations improve continuously from within, will not be looking to any external solutions, and will certainly not be hinting (or worse) at threats of closure. That sort of talk is for petty demagogues who don't realise how powerless they are. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The point about ANI is that it's there for emergencies. The quality of the administrator action that you get from an ANI post is variable. Still, I'm alarmed to hear that ANI suggested the refdesks be shut down. Perhaps the refdesks could benefit from an external peer review. I would value Guy's opinion on that. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt if there was a serious suggestion that it be shut down, more likely just an off-the-cuff comment: "If you're going to keep bothering us about minutia like this, rather than handle it yourself, I wish the Ref Desk would just shut down." StuRat (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very interested in seeing where this alleged conversation took place, and what led up to it, and an explanation of why it was never drawn to the Ref Desk's attention (other than what Medeis has said about it). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ANI is a noticeboard for getting issues to administrators' attention. It would certainly not have the power to close the refdesks, although if there were frequent criticisms of the refdesks aired there, then some people in the community would pay close attention to them. This talkpage is the correct forum for meta-discussion about the desks' health. If there is something we can't resolve here, then we could take out an RfC, or go into dispute resolution, or initiate a wider community debate at the Village Pump. I do quite like the idea of a peer review, because we are, or should be, open to suggestions for improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There was some suggestion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Is the Reference Desk even necessary?, but bear in mind that only about 3 people suggested it. It probably didn't help that a long discussion had taken place on ANI before any non RD regular had butted in. It may have been mentioned or suggested one or two more times in recent ANI discussions, I can't recall for sure and perhaps I didn't see them anyway, and can't find any now. But anyway as Itsmejudith and others have said, it's quite unlikely an ANI thread will directly result in the RD being closed. That will need some sort of RFC or far wider discussion at a minimum first.

Perhaps more interestingly, if you check out the discussions, you'd find that will providing inappropriate advice is one concern and answering questions that shouldn't have been, as is providing unreferenced personal opinion answers rather then references; another big concern is allowing problematic editors free rein. (During my research, I found someone who said the RD is well known as a place where people seem to think AGF is a suicide pact.)

And however well meaning μηδείς may be, I'd think they'd find if someone actually puts together evidence for a case most people would view them as part of the problem rather then part of the solution i.e. an example of how we allow people way too much free rein. While my personal belief is a cross between BB and J32 for the question that started this thread (and therefore probably closer to μηδείς then a number of other people), it's clear that many of their closures and other actions are disputed.

Even if (and I think it's a big if), their more aggressive stance is closer to what people outside the RD would prefer, their lack of consensus, frequently unwillingness to discuss their actions and in particular inconsistency* is not likely to be viewed kindly. It also doesn't help they often see connections which just aren't there, e.g. the thread above (or perhaps recently archived) and I just came across this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Please block User:Ochson for forging my signature, and editing other's comments.

(*) As I've said before, in a number of areas albeit perhaps not medical advice ones, they seem quite willing to do the stuff they complain about or try to close.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to answer a question we can imagine the OP might have asked, but didn't.

On the contrary: OP's questions are often muddled, and we must often read between the lines.

It's not our place to give unreferenced answers like StuRat's to any questions, whether they make sense or not

It is our place to answer as many questions as we can. (Furthermore, not-making-sense is often in the eyes of the beholder; some of our regulars do a much better job of -- correctly -- teasing out the OP's intent than others.)

and it's not our place to assume that every question is inherently valid unless a US Supreme Court case rules it valid.

Your exaggeration concerning the Supreme Court does not advance the argument.

We are required to (and usually do) assume good faith of our questioners.

In case of doubt we refrain from giving medical opinions.

But we are reasonably free to dispense medical information.

We are not qualified to tell the OP why his family gets sick.

Indeed not, but some basic observations about why some people get sick more often than others are not going to hurt anybody.

If anybody wants to take this to an ANI again, feel free--although the last several times their opinion was that the RD should be shut down-they just didn't act on it.

If you don't let me get my way, I'm telling Mommy, and she's gonna spank you this time, I know she will!

The line between medical information and medical advice is a gray one, it's true, and one I'm sure we'll be dissecting forever, though hopefully in reasonable, non-dogmatic ways.

I'm also struck by the line between some contributors here who, it's true, go out of their way to answer any question no matter what, and others who, it seems, head to the RDs as part of their chores every day with the sole intent of finding problems with as many threads as they can. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like μηδείς/Medeis is still using reverts to push her POV against consensus and against Wikipedia policy.[7] I reverted the change[8] and gave the user a warning on her talk page.[9] If this continues, we may want to consider seeking a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, everyone. I have half a mind to close this thread down, as it has long past the optimal heat-to-light ratio. At this point its just a whole lot of back-and-forth sniping. I meant exactly what I said above; the amount of attention given to this by both sides of the dispute isn't worth it, and it may be best if both fighters just retreated to neutral corners and left it alone. I'm not endorsing OR condemning either side, just noting that the dispute at this point is simultaneously intractable and insignificant, and as such, it's probably best if all involved just let it go. --Jayron32 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stopping now per Jayron32's suggestion. This will be my last comment on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You'll have to forgive me, but I am not the one issuing threats here or elsewhere--I am the subject of them, to which my response is, go ahead. That in no way constitutes a threat by my requiring that I be told to "shut the fuck up" or anything else. (Frankly, I am shocked by that comment and its source.) In the meantime, there is obviously no consensus that we should be entertaining requests for medical diagnosis or answering them with vague unreferenced speculation. The fact stands that self-policing of our own policies remains necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, despite the promise above of no more comments, this is continuing with Guy removing another editor's comment [10] from the thread, and placing yet another ANI warning on my talk page, not because I restored the hat, but because he didn't like the edit summary wording "no such consensus" on my talk page! Can someone perhaps suggest that he should refrain from continuing this?

Let's see. In my opinion:

• you were wrong to re-close the discussion against consensus
• Guy was wrong to construct this non-poll on your talk page attempting to demonstrate consensus, and
• an anonymous IP editor was wrong to leave this unsigned comment, and Guy was right to remove it.

And, finally, Jayron was right to urge us all to drop this. Let's do. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have done so and tried to mend fences, but you will see here Macon is still,as of 4 1/2 hours after your post, trying to recruit against me, and I'd appreciate if some admin would ask him to stop it. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Predictions

RE: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate".

That ban on predictions seems a bit overly broad. We certainly can provide predictions of solar eclipses, for example. It should probably say something to the effect of "Rather than making predictions based on our own intuition, we will only reference predictions listed in reliable sources". Should we make this change ? StuRat (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You could consider making a change on the science desk only. It's always going to be difficult to predict future human events. But then that's also true for volcano eruptions and earthquakes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As Jack points out below, some human events, like US Presidential election schedules, are rather predictable. StuRat (talk)

There's a distinction to be made between (a) asking for "what is going to happen" and (b) asking for "what prominent commentators have said is going to happen". The former would just be us chewing the fat; the latter is referenceable, and is one step removed from a prediction per se.

As StuRat says, we provide data on future eclipses; not because we have personally worked out the details but because scientists and mathematicians have done so and have published them in reputable places that we know millions of people rely on and plan their eclipse watching activities accordingly. They have a perfect record of accuracy so far, which is cause for strong confidence. (Unlike predictions of the end of the world, for example.)

We also reveal when the next US presidential election etc will be - again, not because we say so but because the US Constitution says so, and while that can be changed and has been changed, there's no proposal to change this bit of it, so we can feel very safe in giving out the date of the next 25 elections. If it turns out some change happens in 50 years time and the latter dates turn out to be wrong, they can always come back here and slap our collective wrists. I'll be 6 feet under by then, so I'm not losing any sleep.

Things like countries leaving the Eurozone are somewhat more nebulous. But if there has in fact been any talk of this matter reported in reputable journals, there is nothing wrong with pointing our users to those commentaries. Such talk may include some commentator saying "I believe Country X will leave the Eurozone by 2020". That wouldn't have been reported unless the person has some general recognition or standing in the discussion, and is not just some anonymous blogger or talk back radio caller. It in no way is a case of us making our own prediction or us providing our own opinions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And does my proposed text capture that better than what we currently have ? StuRat (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does, imo, Stu. I was mainly responding to Itsmejudith, who feels scientifically-based predictions are OK but others apparently not. I don't see any need to restrict this to just the Science desk. All our desks have always been subject to the same rules and policies, so we have to devise the rules in such a way that they apply across the board. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any objection to the change, but I'm not sure you are solving a real problem. People violate these rules all the time anyway, and most other ones, so why tweak them so nicely? The real problem on the ref desk is immoderate behaviour on religion and politics, coupled with a pretentious attachment to one's own point of view. I am not naming names, and have no interest in personality disputes. Problems start when people get into continuing something that wasn't worth much time to start with. On the other hand, getting the rules right is a worthy aim. I admit it is a problem that the rules are unrealistic and unenforceable, and I see that you are trying to help fix this problem. But you are dealing with a smallish fragment of a wide-ranging problem. The most unrealistic rules are the big ones: NPOV, NOR. These only work in mainspace because people can talk things out, and eventually get to NPOV and NOR. You can't do it on a talk-style page (signed, personal posts). You can't agree beforehand on exactly what counts as NPOV. You have to aim for the same end point - slowly extracting the content as a thread continues, separating it from unreferenced opinion, or things you just heard on tv. You can't start a thread at this point - you just have to minimise POV and OR, defer to people with more experience, and work out where you can just agree to disagree with someone. This, I think, is where the rules are really unworkable, because they don't acknowledge this, and the result is inevitable. Longwinded post, I know. Just a thought. IBE (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Jack and IBE have the right idea. If you want to be pedantic and/or philosophical about, really nothing is perfectly predictable. For all we know there's an asteroid the size of Mexico aiming to render our prediction of tomorrow's sunrise purely academic. But we can talk about when things are scheduled to happen or have been calculated to happen like US presidential primaries, solar eclipses, and so on. Moreover, we can always (as Jack notes) provide references for when other people make predictions, regardless of how off the wall or inane they may be. Like IBE, I am also leery of trying to fine tune and enumerate a rule that needs to be interpreted "in the spirit" rather than "by the letter". Not because it's not good to have written rules, but because the end points would always be arbitrary and we'd argue about the fine points endlessly. Here's my short version: if you're not getting your answer from a reference or a calendar or a calculator, you're probably edging into crystal ball territory. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I seem to have violated this rule. I'll try not to in the future. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Weekend job excerpt

This conversation relocated from the Misc desk to a more suitable venue. — Lomn 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking whether Americans understand what the two words 'weekend and job mean when combined? And you want references? μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the Q again. They are asking if jobs are common in the US which only require work on the weekend. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Again"? Are you continuing some sort of grudge Stu? If so move it to the talk page. And what exactly do "But he's never heard of the concept" and "...in America" mean in regard to a thread on weekend jobs if not that Americans don't understand the notion? μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think his friend having not heard of it would indicate that nobody in the US has ? It might mean it's less common, though, which is what the Q is about. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

snip ends here

---

Re: "Again": yes. Medeis, you have a pattern of questioning the validity of transparently reasonable questions after others have been productively answering them. It's tiresome. Stop it. — Lomn 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would not add a "me too" comment, but given Medeis' rather unique interpretation of consensus when it applies to her actions, I must say that Lomn hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree II: with both Lomn and Guy Macon. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious rape humor on the Ref Desk

Yeah, I'm done for the day. As long as the Ref Desk tacitly or explicitly endorses and encourages this kind of behavior, it's going to keep on shrinking, and is going to continue to become more and more a playground and chatroom, and less and less any sort of credible, useful resource that might reflect well on Wikipedia.

An exchange from here

The UK abolished it in the 60s, because it's better to give them a lifetime of being careful not to drop the soap in the showers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks, KageTora, for reminding us that forcible rape is funny, as long as it's directed at people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) It's all a matter of perspective. Mel Brooks once said, "Tragedy is if I have a hangnail. Comedy is if you get killed." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC) That's a good point, Bugs. Rape jokes are funny, and I'm glad there are people like you to stand up for the innocent people who spout them. God, this place disgusts me sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Apparently there's a high-tech ball-and-chain keeping you here against your will. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to all the messages telling me to lighten up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not all jokes need to be inappropriate. Just the funny ones. --Jayron32 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please,people don't make jokes about rape. It isn't necessary. KageTora, you make great contributions; this one didn't add any useful info. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke "about rape", it was a joke about a hypothetical murderer who is lucky enough to live in a country which had abolished the death penalty, only to receive perhaps "a fate worse than death" in prison. This is called gallows humor. Vaguely similar to something Dennis Miller once said, about the murderer of fellow prisoner-lifer Jeffrey Dahmer, being made the grand marshall of the Thanksgiving parade. Or in Animal House, in which one of the snobbish frat boys is said to have been caught in the Watergate scandal later and then "raped in prison". And Kage didn't invent that joke about the prison shower - it is very, very old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't show Wikipedia at its best. Didn't help the OP. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What really bothers me is why some people feel it necessary to make jokes on the RD at all which do not answer the question. --Viennese Waltz 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting with Shadowjam's comment, conveniently omitted from the section quoted above, "Let's all use this as a jumping off point to discuss the wisdom and ethics of capital punishment." You want to yell at somebody, start with that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking at him, though. I'm looking at you. --Viennese Waltz 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No you're not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: I understand the general point you're making. I don't think anyone here condones rape in any circumstances, and that construction can't be put on KageTora's joke. As Bugs says, gallows humour has a long and venerable tradition.

That you're over-reacting a little can be seen in your reference to "potentially wrongfully convicted" people. Do you mean that we should consider all prisoners to be wrongfully convicted unless the rightness of their convictions can be incontrovertibly demonstrated? I thought that was what the justice system was supposed to do anyway, with its acceptance of conviction "beyond all reasonable doubt". Sure, people have been known to be wrongfully convicted, but you can't use that as a bargaining tool in a topic like this. Because, the corollary is that anyone who has been rightfully convicted deserves everything they get, whether that be a punishment decreed by statute or something rather less legal and rather more unsavoury. And I really don't think you mean us to understand that to be your position. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While I personally think that jokes about prison rape are barbaric, I also have to acknowledge that Jay Leno makes them several times per week, so obviously a lot of people accept them. Would you make jokes about women or children being raped? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think this has gone beyond its elastic limit. A lot of sexual activity goes on in prisons, often between men who would never in a million years consider themselves gay, and who never do it again on the outside where their options are wider. And yes, handsome young men in prison are at risk of being the target of unwanted sexual advances. And yes, rapes do go on there. But all of this detail is way beyond what KageTora ever said. People are allowed to sometimes say "Backs to the wall" in a jocular and humorous way without other people getting terribly bent out of shape about it. That would no more be a gratuitous or uncaring attitude to rape than what KageTora said. Because if it's that bad, then we have to now publicly burn every copy of every Carry-On movie, and every Benny Hill episode and every Two Ronnies episode and every Dave Allen episode and all manner of other things. Not to mention "Springtime for Hitler", which succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of The Producers (it was supposed to fall completely flat and the show was supposed to fold after one night, because of the offence it would undoubtedly cause, but it sort of went the other way. Humour is very unpredictable like that). The millions and millions of people who've laughed at these jokes for centuries cannot be accused of what KageTora's being accused of here, so why single him out? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I agree that the way I phrased that could be misinterpreted. To be clear, I don't condone rape of anyone, outside or inside prison, however rightful or wrongful their conviction. Call it a misguided attempt to prompt people who offer up this sort of 'humor' to spend at least a little bit of time thinking about the population they're joking about, instead of just dismissing them as a homogeneous, undifferentiated, vague blob of sub-humanity.

For your own part, I find it troubling that you're bringing up – in the context of this discussion – consensual sex between individuals who may be embarrassed after the fact; instead of just insinuating it, why don't you just come out and say that you think prison rape numbers are bogus and inflated (instead of vastly under-reported, as is more likely)? You also lost a bunch of credibility as soon as you declared that "handsome young men in prison are at risk of being the target of unwanted sexual advances". You're treading dangerously close to she's too ugly to be a rape victim, or possibly the 'pretty girls are asking for it' rationalization. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you're taking this WAY, WAY beyond what is reasonable. I insinuated nothing, and you have seriously misrepresented my views on these matters. The fact that you'd switch your sights to me and try to incriminate me because I dare to defend KageTora says a lot about your concern for people in prison who have been wrongfully convicted; because you're setting yourself up as my judge, my jury and my jailer. So much for your concern for the workings of the justice system. Not much point having a bleeding heart for people who might have been wrongfully convicted, if you leave your own innocent victims in the wake of your crusade. Beyond that, I have no further comments. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I apologize. I should not have jumped to a conclusion about your thinking. That was way out of line. I still don't understand why you would choose to include the comments that you made in this conversation, however. Even though my conclusions were overreaching, can you see how those remarks, in this context, could be (mis)taken as horribly, implicitly dismissive? I'll also openly cop to being outright pissed off at your own suggestions about my attitude; just saying "And I really don't think you mean us to understand that to be your position" carries more than a whiff of "I'm perfectly willing to suggest that that might be your position", no matter how you might have meant your remarks.

But damn it, this is turning from an apology to an explanation. I'm going to say that I had a rough day, I took more of it out on you than I had any right to (or than you deserved), I appreciate that you've tried to engage with this discussion, and I'm sorry both for biting your head off and for the inexcusably nasty way I went about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that gracious apology. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's one thing to suggest a joke is in bad humour. It's another to conduct a lengthy inquisition and ask people to prove their innocence. I think we all get the point. And, frankly, if I can't be blamed for something it probably isn't worth blaming people for in the first place. Can I hat this now? μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, or no, can I hat this now? Or are there still guilty parties (besides myself) to flagellate? I have an Almodovar movie about gays, or rape, or prison, or gay rape, or rape in prison, or gays in prison, or gay rape in prison to watch. (Actually, I don't think he's made the last one yet--but there's the lesbian played by a gay transsexual who commits a crime to be reunited with her lover in Tacones lejanos) And I thought you had no further comments. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't about you, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, given the demonstrable fact that your hatting activities are controversial and divisive, I think you should get out of the hatting business. There are plenty of eyes on these reference desk pages, and if something needs to be hatted, someone else who has the trust of the community will hat it. Also, this isn't about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Among your many, many, many faults Guy, is that you have the sense of humor of a land mine. μηδείς (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, my aim was not to single KageTora or JackofOz or anyone else out. This is more of a straw-that-broke-the-camel's back situation. We've reached the point on the Reference Desks where telling jokes (ranging from bad puns to crude potty humor and attacks on the OPs' grammar), giving fast unresearched guesses, and bickering between regulars all consume more time and space than providing useful, courteous, welcoming, well-referenced responses to our visitors. The accepted standard of discourse has slid downward to "what could Jay Leno get away with?". I've been contributing to the Reference Desk since 2005, and I've seen a lot of good and bad behavior over the last eight years. I've defended this corner of the project many times as being a net benefit to Wikipedia, both in terms of the direct improvement our research can add to the encyclopedia, and the indirect but equally valuable accrual of goodwill we can generate. In recent months, though, I've come to wonder about that position. Providing a home for the Boys' Jokes Club – should that be in small type? – isn't what the Reference Desk is supposed to do, and until the last year or so, it hasn't been our primary focus.

People here, now, in this year probably won't believe this, but I'm not opposed to humor on the Reference Desk, and I never have been. I see a distinction between the happy, healthy workplace that gets the job done first and then tells jokes afterward, and the circling-the-drain nearing-bankrupt office where nobody cares about the work anymore, so everyone just chats around the water cooler and looks at lolcats online. I believe that there is a line between the type (and quantity) of jokes that are appropriate for the front-line, customer-facing side of a business that interacts with new 'clients' (many of whom may come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds from our own) and those appropriate for the staff in the break room—and I also believe that there are jokes that don't belong here at all. In the past we certainly bumped against those lines and occasionally danced across them; now it seems we spend more time than not far into that bankrupt-business, rude-to-visitors territory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Intentional rudeness is never acceptable; it never has been here, and I don't believe it's become so now. But communication is a tricky area. It's quite common for someone to feel offended by someone else's remark, even though there was never any intention to cause offence. This is an inherent feature of any environment that operates without visual cues and non-verbals, and the entire online world is that way, not just here. Fwiw, I think we do a damn sight better than most other places. We have clear (-ish) rules and guidelines and we all police each other. We keep it light-hearted with our jokey culture (not that that's unique to here, far from it). I don't think we'd get very far at all if we decreed that jokes may only be told after the question has been substantially answered. Jokes are part of the way we (as a group) do business here; they're not some irrelevant irrelevancies for our tea breaks. The actual level of rudeness and other inappropriatenesses rises and falls with the seasons, but I don't see any trend towards a general increase. I see lots of questions continuing to be asked here, and plenty of satisfied customers, many of whom are repeat visitors. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I have a trademark on the word "inherent" ! :-) StuRat (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ten. This was unfunny and not really a joke. We can do a lot better than that. KageTora's contributions are usually excellent. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I came here because I wanted to see why Andrew's overclocking question was deleted (he actually deleted it himself), but stumbled across this. Recently, I asked a question about why people tend to have unrealistically rosy memories of the past, and why they tend to believe "the world is going down the toilet" even when it's clearly improving. I think this thread is a good example of that psychological phenomenon. Out of curiosity, I checked out an actual record of the Humanities desk in late 2006. The responses then were clearly less informed, fewer in number, and lower in quality than those today. There were fewer jokes, to be sure, but that's because it had less traffic overall.

As for the actual subject of this thread, I've always had this to say to people who want to silence comedy. If you're offended at something, and actually care about the victims as much as your holier-than-thou attitude suggests, why do you not do something meaningful to help them? Why does TenOfAllGrades, for example, not try to raise public awareness of prison rape, set up support networks for its victims, or reform the prison system? Bickering at the Reference Desk will do 1 of 1 things: make people tired of your attitude, and therefore less likely to care about prison rape. Guy Macon asked "would you make jokes about women and children being raped?" My answer is no, but I won't try to silence people on the Reference Desks who do. This is coming from someone who believes in children's rights, to a far greater extent than just believing they shouldn't be raped. Again, if you actually care as much about women and children (and men outside of prison) being raped as you claim to, go donate to a support network. Said victims will thank you for it, and presumably won't thank you for bickering on the Reference Desk. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're talking about charities, Just Detention International seeks to end prison rape, and has the highest possible rating on Charity Navigator. I swear to whatever deity you believe in that I've donated to them before. Anyone else who wants to make a difference should, too. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you don't think anyone should try to "silence" people who make rape jokes, but you do think we should "silence" people who respond to rape jokes by asserting that they are unacceptable? If you're going to play the "free speech" card (which really doesn't apply to the reference desks), then it cuts both ways. People have exactly as much right to tell others off for hurting them as others have to make hateful jokes.

I do not want to see us return to the days when a teenage girl asking about periods and tampons was met with "jokes" from adult men about how disgusting periods are. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you picked a date in late 2006 to look at. To be clear, I don't have any personal illusion that the Ref Desk of late 2005 (when I started editing it) or 2006 (when I really started to get steeped in its culture) was experiencing some hackneyed Golden Age of wonder and perfection. The Reference Desk of that era was growing quickly and enthusiastically, but not always wisely. (To be honest, the Ref Desk of that era also didn't have nearly as good an encyclopedia behind it at the time, either. You couldn't just slap square brackets around any random term and assume that it would point to a useful article.) The Desk had been divided into six sub-desks in August of 2005 (the seventh desk, Entertainment, would come later), and with increasing traffic and increasing interest came increasingly clear problems.

In those days, many of the Ref Desk's regular editors recognized that there were serious user conduct – and Desk content – issues that needed to be addressed, and that led to vigorous debate and discussion. There were a few people who believed firmly that the Ref Desk should be an open chat forum, and that it should be difficult to the point of irrelevance to remove requests for medical advice or trolling. In December 2006, there were created at least three different competing proposed guidelines for the way the Ref Desk should be run (Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules, plus various userspace drafts). I'm going to shamelessly plug User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts as one of the documents that guided the development of our current rules and which I still think is worthwhile reading for anyone who is a regular contributor to the Desks. Ultimately it took more than a month of heavy wrangling, and then three months more of tweaking, before the Ref Desk's conduct and medical advice guidelines were hammered into something very much like their present form. Looking back through the history, someone finally slapped a {guideline} tag on WP:RD/G in April or so of 2007.

It took a period of acclimatization before those principles really seeped into most of the Desk's editors, but (occasional trolls aside) there was steady improvement in attitude and culture. Unfortunately, Wikipedia - like many online communities - tends to have a pretty short institutional memory. Over the last couple of years, I've watched the number of questions, the number of regular participants, the expectations for appropriate conduct, and the willingness to self-police, decline. The ratio of boys-playing to adults-providing-references is shifting the wrong way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• The next time editors think someone has made a joke in bad taste that will offend an OP, they should please put a polite request on the presumed offender's talk page asking them to reconsider. Only after they have told the complainant to bugger off should it be brought here. Sound good? μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's this page for then?Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I would say, "Gossip". But ideally as a resort (in such cases) after you've politely asked someone on his talk page to consider retracting a comment or the like. i am reminded of the Christian mandate not to sue your brethren in court. μηδείς (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatted off-topic content on Humanities Desk

I have hatted a portion of the LA-Michigan bus question on the basis that the discussion was veering away from the subject. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

While I don't disagree in general, one problem is you hatted the response from Sturat (and the followups). Sturat's response was mostly ontopic and while the followup was starting to veer offtopic it may have been better to either leave it unhatted or split the hat and at least leave Sturat's response. Similarly I don't know if it was necessary to hat the response from Looie496 and the following discussion which even if technically offtopic is IMO useful information for the OP. If μηδείς would keep discussions together with decent indenting and replying practice, it wouldn't be necessary so much (the one under Sturat's response was a response to Sturat's response so was reasonable in that regard) unfortunately that ship seems to have long since sailed. While so many split hats so may lead to arguments of picking and choosing, in this case neither StuRat or Looie496's response (and the response to Looie496's response) related to the hatted section so it's more a case of only hatting the responses relating to that specific sub-discussion. Similarly while it looks messy, it's probably better to keep the okay stuff despite the mess. And yes I left a response after the hat. I did so because number one, the suggestion by μηδείς was just so bizarre and number two, claims had been made about what Kotjap has said which AFAIK are not supported (and if they are supported, do make me further wonder about the sincerity of Kotjap). Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies to those who made valid comments that I hatted - I thought I had kept all the relevant answers, but I missed a few. I've adjusted the hat now - feel free to amend it again if necessary. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So, it's too late to invoke ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and declare LA to be the Lao People's Democratic Republic? (runs and hides as everyone throws rotten tomatoes...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the US, it could also mean Lower Alabama [11]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

^{Latvia? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}

The core of the debate was what the OP meant by "LA". The OP has already moved onto his next question without bothering to address that issue. So maybe the entire section should be closed as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the OP for clarification, and so far he's not cooperating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's from Detroit, sorry to cooperate too late. Kotjap (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And TO Los Angeles.[12] It took like 3 or 4 tries to finally get a factual answer from that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It took 5 separate statements by the user to arrive at an unambiguous question:[13][14][15][16][17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk about angels on heads of pins. The default use of LA is Los Angeles (see the number plate here) and if people hadn't pretended not to know that, all this palaver wouldn't have happened. Whatever we may say about the OP, this side skirmish had nothing to do with them, and I don't blame them for not wanting to get involved. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Michigan is a state, a big one at that; and Los Angeles is a city. Asking how far it is from one to the other does not make logical sense. I assumed LA referred to Los Angeles, and I guessed he might have been thinking of Detroit; but we are not mind readers, and the other editors raised doubts, and it was "like pulling teeth" to get the OP to explain what his question actually was supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, I note that Google Maps has no problems offering a driving distance from "Michgan" to "Los Angeles, CA". Distances to large objects are, of necessity, approximations, but I might also note that "Los Angeles" isn't a point source, either -- does it mean downtown? The airport? Pasadena? Anaheim? What matters, for any approximation, is that you accept that some uncertainty will be present and move on. Alternately, if a question "does not make logical sense" to you, then just move on and answer something else that does. — Lomn 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Weighing in generally: Mostly, I'm disappointed that several editors will always rush in to defend the preservation of the nonsense du jour. I'm increasingly in favor of quick, silent removal (with notification on the individual's talk page, perhaps) for rants that don't attempt answer the question. In this specific case, it's reasonable to note that LA could mean the city or the state, but there aren't many good ways to bring it up. Particularly, once LA-the-city has been answered, there's an acceptable branching reply of "did you instead mean Louisiana?", but the far better reply is to provide the information for Louisiana in the event that that's what the original poster wanted. As best I read it, none of the hand-wringing about postal abbreviations included the 15 seconds necessary to provide that reference. — Lomn 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And for the record, I'm from British Columbia, and I will freely admit to reading that as Michigan to Los Angeles, even knowing that one is a city and one is a state. kotjap doesn't appear to be American, and it's awfully rich to assume non-Americans of kotjap's apparent extraction to even know postal abbreviations. Cast a wide net with your answers, and the debate won't be needed. Mingmingla (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aggression on the ref desk

I recognize that I ask lot of questions, because I love the Wikipedia community. But I don't break any rule, yet I have received aggressions. My question is simply why. Kotjap (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the questions you ask, and the comments you make, do a good job of 'getting people's backs up'. You 'push people's buttons' - you annoy them. If I were being uncharitable, I would suggest that you do this knowingly, enjoying the kerfuffle you cause. However, I like to think you are acting in good faith, so I won't.

There is no single reason that can be put forward for other user's aggression towards you. Each will have their own reason for writing the things they do. I'm sure some of those reasons will be put forward here in due course.

Personally, I'm sorry if you feel that you have been the target of aggression on these desks. I volunteer here out of a desire to help improve the knowledge of others (as well as a sense of personal satisfaction in finding answers), and so I dislike hurtful comments being made. Nonetheless, there are certain things you can do to improve your interactions here - just as in face-to-face contact, there is a certain etiquette which, if followed, can help to make conversations at the ref desks more pleasant. (What follows is merely my own take on the matter, and not a guaranteed solution - though the advice is, I believe, sound.)

Firstly, try to reduce the amount of questions that you ask. Whilst there is no 'limit' on asking questions, it takes time for volunteers to read and answer each one properly. I would suggest that one question every 24 hours should be plenty. Secondly, especially when you are asking a large number of questions, it is polite to 'help out' by attempting to answer the questions of others. Of course, you should only provide answers where you are able to give a good, referenced source, but it would show us that you are willing to 'lend a hand'. Thirdly, think more carefully about factual basis of the questions you are asking. Think about whether or not we would be able to provide a reference to answer your question - basically 'can this be answered by looking in a book?' Questions that seek opinions generally cannot, and repeated opinion-seeking gets tiresome for us. Finally, consider the subjects that you ask about. Certain subjects, such as Nazism, can be quite emotive, and can lead to more heated discussion. It might be best to stay away from such controversial subjects.

I hope the above gives some useful advice. However, you should be warned that, in the past, users displaying similar lines of questioning to yourself have ended up serving a ban from Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you are not connected to them. Even if you are not, continuing to ask questions in the way that you do could lead to a similar ban. I'm saying this not because I wish to see such an outcome, more that I wish NOT to see you being banned. So, try to follow the advice above, keep your head down, and try not to take any hurtful remarks made towards you personally. Just ignore them. If you can do this I'm sure we'll all get along well.

Lastly, if I may be so bold as to address my fellow RD volunteers, please, if you can, try not to add to the disruption that is already going on. We often see a user dropping in, posting a large number of questions on diverse subjects, creating heated debates, and ending up with a ban. If we were able to recognise when a topic might cause us to post in haste, with ill-judged personal remarks, and so to avoid that topic, I'm sure it would make life easier for everyone.

Here endeth the lesson. Peace out. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question simply and honestly: the types of questions you ask aren't the sort of things that the Reference Desk are geared to handle. The majority of your questions deal with things that require people to give their opinions or are invitations to open discussion or debate rather than requests for information. The reference desk simply isn't designed for questions like "Is this provocative?" or "Why do China and North Korea hate us?", many of the questions, not just those two (I picked to random ones, there are many more problems) aren't the types of questions someone could point to a Wikipedia article and link you to a website and say "Here, read this..." Ideally, that's the sort of questions you should ask: questions which allow someone to direct you to more information, or to perhaps explain the meaning of something. Questions that simply ask people's opinions on a topic are wholly inappropriate for the reference desk. Now, the first 2-3 times you did this, no one much cared, because people who are new aren't expected to know the rules. The reason people are now becoming annoyed and peeved is that you've been informed of all of this, and continue to ask the same sorts of questions. Once you've been informed of the rules, it's expected that you'll work within them. That you haven't yet is why people are getting ticked off. --Jayron32 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, I understand now, and I promise to change my ways of asking questions and only when necessary. Thank you and I apologize. In my culture the honor is important, so I'd be honored with your accepting my apology. Thank.Kotjap (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive Issue

Links to the February 2013 archive subpages don't seem to be showing up on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives, despite there being questions from February that have fallen of the RefDesk. -- 67.40.213.4 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. As an example, here's User:scsbot taking questions off the Humanities desk last night: [18]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And here is the archive (transcluded) page scabot created for the hunanities desk questions last night: [19]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And here's the diff of scsbot adding last night's archived humanities questions to the humanities archive page for February 2013: [20]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

All that hasn't happened is that nobody has manually edited Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to add the column for February 2013 in the table, and link each one to the relevant archive pages that have already been created. You just need to follow the format of all the others: it's really quick and easy. I'm just going to check whether it's semi-protected, and if it's not I'll just do it.

It does surprise me, given how little work is required for archiving now compared to in the past, that ref desk regulars who seem to be here every day don't do this minimal editing to maintain the archives. You don't need permission, and it isn't complicated. There is no 'help' to do it for you: just other editors. (This is not directed at you, intrepid editor who posted this thread). 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)