Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Question moved to Wikipedia:Help desk#Searches of ANI.  --Lambiam 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it's so late. (Computing Desk:Classic code & magic constants - 1-4 Nov 07) - n = (n & 0x0f0f0f0f) + ((n & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4);. Yes, that's what I thought. Then the Comp desk proved geeks can be funny. --Dweller 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My bribery worked! --ffroth 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this question per

Based on other posts from the same IP, it appears to me that this is just an eager believer in UFO's and hominid cryptids who wants us all to know the truth.  --Lambiam 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Several months ago, there was a persistent spammer hyping, IIRC, the Art Bell show in this way. This one seemed different, but I agree, it was dubious and merited removal. —

talk

) 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to a question a few weeks ago, I decided to analyse the number of questions asked and answered on the Ref Desk. I chose 4 consecutive weeks to sample - from 1 - 28 October 2007 - and did the final count once all the questions were archived. The complete analysis is at User:Rockpocket/Ref desk stats, but the short version is that 1860 questions were asked, 75 of these questions remained unanswered (4%), providing a response rate of 96%. Thats 66.4 questions asked per day of which 2.7 go unanswered. There is some variation in answer rate between the different subjects, but among questions that, for whatever reason, can be reasonably expected to be answered, there isn't much difference.

Also, while we are on the subject, 68 articles have now been "created or significantly enhanced" as a direct result of the efforts here in the 10 months since I have been keeping records (6 were added during the sample I analysed). On the first anniversary of

So, all in all, despite the bickering over medical questions and deletionism, I think this shows, collectively, that you are doing a fine job, providing a robust service and directly enhancing the encyclopaedia in a small but significant way. Well done! Rockpocket 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a 'give yourselves a pat on the back' template? I think we all do a good job in general and that we all enjoy doing it reflects well on the desk as a whole and in the comprehensiveness of many answers and a good dose of humour that also makes it enjoyable to read. Lanfear's Bane | t 14:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket's analysis left me wondering just how fast we were at answering questions. I took four days' worth of Science desk archives drawn from the month of October and plotted the cumulative fraction of questions receiving a response against the time elapsed since the question was asked. On the Science Desk, we should all be proud to note that half of all questions receive a response within 37 minutes! Three quarters of all questions receive a response in less than three hours. Less than five percent (3 of 62 in my sample) questions went unanswered. Well done, everyone! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a story I heard about someone on vacation who wanted to mail a letter to his friend. Unfortunately, he didn't have his friend's address, so he just wrote "John Jinkleheimer, Atlanta, GA" on the envelope, and sent it off. When John received the letter, someone from the Post Office had written on it, "No street address. No ZIP code. Are we good, or what?" —

It's a shame we don't have data on how satisfied our users were with our answers. I suppose someone with time on their hands could send talk page messages to all of the OP's asking for a "points out of ten" assessment of the answers they got. At the very least, this could be done for questioners with accounts here. SteveBaker 17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What action is taken in the event that a user helps 'restore' rd-deleted questions here, and is quite rude here here. I included the link to show how he spelt medical incorrectly rather than link to my talk page, which is delicious borderline irony when pulling someone about an apparent lack of vocabulary knowledge, I found amusing. I tried to ask nicely on his talk not to take part in this sort of activity or encourage ignoring the rules. Lanfear's Bane | t 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the profound lack of consensus about deletions from the desk, and your rôle in the ongoing dispute, I find your question a trifle disingenuous LB. DuncanHill 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely worded. Sshhhhhh, or this section will turn 10 pages long in hours --ffroth 23:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Worded so as to assume bad faith. Everybody's role is to improve Wikipedia. This is the talk page where we try to reach consensus on how to do that. I recommend that if a question is deleted, anyone who wants to restore it should announce their desire on this page, and wait a day for reasonable dissent. --Milkbreath 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "worded so as to assume bad faith", any more than Lanfear's Bane worded his post here to assume bad faith. I would recommend that if anyone wants to delete a question they should post their intention here, and wait a day for reasonable dissent. DuncanHill 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you compel me to explain, what with the growling. The way I define "disingenuous" makes it an attack on LB's intentions. It means that he is being deceptive and hoping we won't notice. If he were doing that, he would be acting in bad faith. And the ironical stinger adjective "trifle" twists the knife. Let's drop the divisive crap and arrive at a solution to the deletion problem; there is enough meat on that bone of contention that we don't have to worry at each other. --Milkbreath 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That approach was considered and rejected several months ago (you can dig through the archives, if you're interested). It was observed that a slow process like that just wasn't suited to the fast responses that usually take place here on the Desks. (See the section above for the statistics. About two thirds of questions get a response in the first hour after they're posted; nearly every question is answered by the three hour mark.) Leaving a question out on the Desk for a full day is functionally equivalent to not removing it at all.

Leaving questions in place with various sorts of explanations why we can't answer them also failed to work. Every type of message we could think of – hidden HTML comments, templated notices, hand-tailored comments, section-closed boxes – was ineffective in discouraging people from offering medical advice. The advice was always offered with the best of intentions, and usually from individuals who were new to the Desks and (like the people asking for advice) just not aware of our policy in the issue. Unfortunately even the best of intentions aren't proof against harm.

That brings us to the present situation. Questions get removed if they seek medical advice as it is defined within our policy. It's not perfect and there are occasional errors in both directions. It is indeed the worst form of management, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time (with sincere apologies to Churchill). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, when someone asks what to do about the reinsertion of deleted posts, when that deletion is itself contentious, and fails to mention the contention or their part in it, then that person is being disingenuous. To invoke AGF can itself sometimes be a breach of AGF - and can be (and I believe is being here) used to stifle debate and prevent honest assessments of editors' behaviour. DuncanHill 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus when it is justified to remove a question, and there probably will never be one. But can we at least agree to some protocol? As a first try, I suggest this:

1. Next to questions for medical advice we only remove questions (including postings that are not really questions) if they are obvious vandalism, in some way harmful (offensive, trolling, meant to inflame), or egregious soapboxing.
2. An editor who removes a question, removes the whole thread, but leaves the header intact, and adds a text like: "Question removed. See [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Question on <topic> removed|talk page]]."
3. On the talk page, they copy the removed thread and give their rationale for the removal.
4. Discussion on whether the removal was appropriate takes place there, with the usual respect, friendliness, and assumption of good faith, that is the hallmark of discussions on this page.
5. Everyone refrains from restoring the question unless the removal was clearly unreasonable, or it becomes clear that there is consensus that the question should not have been removed.

The "slow process" that did not work left the question on the RD page. Here, the assumption is that it has been removed already by some editor. For clarity, where I write "we only remove questions if" I do not mean "we always remove questions if" or "we must remove questions if".  --Lambiam 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

People be warned. The Antisemitism question which has just appeared on the Humanites Desk gives all the apperance of being posted by a troll who formerly went by the name of Barringa etc. etc., long since banned. Clio the Muse 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently, I've answered a lot of questions with an explanation that the Reference Desk is for factual questions, not opinion questions. Is there a template that I can use instead? --

I don't think such a template exists, but it is easy enough to make one if you know what it should say.  --Lambiam 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do people on here have this obsession with templates for warning notices... honestly, just type out what you want to say! You don't get stuck with a cookie cutter message that may or may not fit exactly with the type of question, and does it really take that long to type out "The ref desk is not for opinions" rather than {{refdesknoopinions}} or something? 68.231.151.161 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a case of replacing two or three words with a template. It is a case of using a template to explain a complicated and often abused community rule in the Reference Desk. For example, see

™

03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule about trying to draw a firm line between fact and opinion the ref desk, and I'm not sure where or why you'd want to draw a line between "opinion" and "interpretation". Plenty of opinions do not violate the soapbox rule, the reference desk is a place to solicit answers, some of which are going to require interpretation and opinion. Hint: if you are the only one who seems to want to use such a template, then it probably doesn't need a template. Or if it does, for whatever godawful reason, host it in your own userspace. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See

™

23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives:

To see which archives of are active, check the following pages with recent changes to the archives:

--zenohockey 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, the editors of

™

13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but the difference is that that article cites a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with what you've provided, Kainaw, but that's clearly not what the original question is asking for. Trying to paint it like a question about the RDA is disingenuous. — Lomn 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I read the question, it appears to me to be a question about the acceptable dosage of Vitamin C. I do not see any request for a diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition. --

™

14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrased, the question concludes with "how many pills should I take?" and "should I mix various pills?" in the context of whether or not exceeding the RDA is a good idea. As I noted, I think listing the RDA is fine. That's objective information. It's not what the OP was asking for, though. — Lomn 14:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this is in talk - there's no need to paraphrase. Here's the question:

So I know you guys aren't supposed to give medical advice, and I assure you I won't act on what you say, but I'm curious about vitamin consumption in general and products such as Emergen-C in particular. I take a multivitamin tablet every day, and I also generally eat a very balanced meal that surely contains many additional vitamins. Am I overloading? If I were to feel a cold coming on and took a packet of Emergen-C, in addition to my multivitamin, would I be having too much vitamin C? If not, then why doesn't the everyday vitamin pill contain more C to boost your immune system, or if it's OK (or in fact benefitial) to have an 'overdose' of vitamins, why don't I take two multivitamins every day? Or three? Or a multivitamin and then a pill of C, and B12, and all that ad infinitum? What's the deal with all this vitamining? What's the right way to go about it? Thanks, 140.247.40.119 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I read this, I see the following: Person takes multivitamin and eats "healthy". Does that exceed the proper level of Vitamin C? If the person takes extra Vitamin C, does that exceed the proper level? If the answer to both questions is "no" - then what does exceed the proper level? Is it harmful or beneficial to exceed the proper level? I do not see "how many pills should I take?" and "should I mix various pills?" --

™

14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Every health food store clerk feels free to answer such a question. None have been convicted of practicing medicine without a license. It's absurd to suggest that such an answer constitutes "medical advice". - Nunh-huh 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My mom would answer, too. So would the guy sitting next to you on the bus. We, on the other hand, aren't allowed to. It's that simple. The reasons why we aren't allowed to should be obvious, but if they aren't there's wall after wall of text about it if you want to look. But I don't think we're debating the policy right now, but this specific question. There are at least two questions within the question that constitute a request for medical advice: "Am I overloading?" and "What's the right way to go about it?". If we answer the first "Nah, you're fine", and it turns out he ODs on vitamin A, won't we feel silly. If we answer the second "Take one of pill X daily and two of pill Y every Ides of March, and he gets scurvy, don't you think our credibility would suffer? One might be tempted to argue the facts of the ridiculous answers I've just proposed, but one is not a doctor, is one, so one's opinion on the matter is exactly as valuable as that of the guy on the bus. --Milkbreath 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people can give bad answers does not alter the nature of the question. "How much vitamin C is too much" is not a request for medical advice. And food supplements are not medicine. - Nunh-huh 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a case where some people read this question as "Give me medical advice about self-medicating myself with vitamins." and others read it as "How much Vitamin C is normal/acceptable/too much?" Those are two completely different questions. So, we have a situation where fear of answering the first question ensures that nobody can answer the second one. In other words, we are censoring information out of fear that someone may read the question the wrong way. --

™

15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a very clear definition of what a request for medical advice is: it is asking for a diagnosis of a medical condition, or for a treatment of such a condition. The question posed was neither of those. - Nunh-huh 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about that. The "What does this apply to" section puts it that way. But the first paragraph says "including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis", which implies that there are things not those that are also medical advice. I'm not saying we should blindly and rigorously follow the guidelines verbatim, but that we should use some common sense and protect the desk. "Ignore all rules" cuts both ways. If it looks like a duck.... --Milkbreath 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We have guidlines for a reason. There'd be less drama if there were less improvisation. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. Thing is, what am I supposed to do if my common sense tells me that a question is one of the bad kind we're talking about? No set of engraved rules will be able to cover all contingencies. If an editor removes a question and can at least make a good case here on the talk page, I think we just have to relax to it. If that editor is full of baloney or is being pointy or something, we put the question back. A certain amount of drama is inevitable, don't you think? --Milkbreath 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We have far more drama than is necessary on this specific issue, which would be perfectly avoidable if we followed the guidelines instead of relying on each Wikipedian's "common sense". - Nunh-huh 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've reached the limit of my intelligence here. I can't see how what you just said is different from what you just said. Please believe that I'm only trying to do what's right on the desk and am groping toward a solution on this page. I sense a certain finality in your tone that I will take as a signal to shut up now. Till next time. --Milkbreath 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not invited you to "shut up"; I have suggested that you reconsider your suggestion that we rely on Wikipedian's "good sense". If we could do that, there would be no need for guidelines. You are free, of course, to do and believe as you please. - Nunh-huh 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I view the removal of this reference desk tread as disruptive and not justified by the rules concerning medical advice. I view this as a violation of the Wikipedia principles of "assume good faith" and "do not bite". --JWSchmidt 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello JWS. I really don't want to go through the discussion about assumption of good faith again, but I'd appreciate it if you extended it to everyone— even the people who disagree with you about this question. Suggesting that some people aren't familiar with our policies – or that they may have interpreted those policies incorrectly – isn't an assumption of bad faith; it's an acknowledgement that human judgement is fallible.

To the broader question of why I removed the thread, at the point that I snipped it it already had two responses that contained medical advice. There was one comment that advised that 'vitamin C is safe' even in large doses (quantities up to several grams) without discussing potential risks and side effects. This comment also advised against vitamin supplements of any kind unless specifically instructed by a physician. Another editor offered up a caution about one possible side effect of high-dose vitamin C (diarrhea), but omitted others (acidosis, stomach irritation, etc.). Neither comment included any suggestion to take questions about self-medication to a medical professional (pharmacist or physician). Neither comment included any links to further information on- or off-wiki.

Mentioning a side effect is not medical advice. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite the original poster's statement that he 'won't act on what [we] say', he's still looking for medical advice when he asks questions like,

• "I take a multivitamin tablet every day...many additional vitamins. Am I overloading?"
• "If I were to feel a cold coming on and took a packet of Emergen-C, in addition to my multivitamin, would I be having too much vitamin C?" and
• "What's the deal with all this vitamining? What's the right way to go about it?"

It would be rather disingenuous of us to assume that he is not going to modify his behaviour based on our comments. (Again, not an assumption of bad faith, just knowledge of human nature.) If you were told that something you were doing (or considering doing) was likely harmful to your health, wouldn't you consider stopping? By the same token, if we tell him that a particular practice is 'safe', he's much less likely to confirm that assessment with a professional, particularly if we're just confirming his own guesses.

In other words, I pulled the thread because the question was – at least in part – seeking medical advice, because the editors responding were giving it (intentionally or not), and because nobody had even thought to advise him to seek advice from a qualified professional. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear your views, 10 (may I call you 10?), on the point raised by Nunh-huh above. The guidelines as written seem to strictly define what constutes medical advice. --Milkbreath 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not Ten, I think the original question falls squarely into the "treatment" category, which Nunh-huh references. I think Ten's excerpts above make this quite clear, even if there's no single obvious "condition" being treated. — Lomn 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What condition do you contend is being treated? - Nunh-huh 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's some kind of personal attack on Ten isn't it? ISNT IT? "While I'm not Ten" You sir are pure genius --ffroth 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

With this explanation, if I were to ask what kind of coating is used on Bayer Aspirin and someone replies with a suggestion that I take 10 pills/day, the entire thread should be removed due to a bad answer as opposed to removal of the bad answer - correct? --

™

18:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can fairly draw this conclusion. Ten notes that he felt both the question and the answers were tied up with medical advice, and thus removed it. — Lomn 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple of layers to that hypothetical situation, but the short answer to your question is no. In the case that you suggest, you weren't asking for medical advice, so there's no reason to remove your question. (In contrast with the vitamin question that started this discussion thread, which asked for several pieces of specific medical advice—effects of combinations of drugs he was considering taking, what to do to treat particular illnesses, how to medicate himself.) Whether or not the bad (terrible!) answer gets removed in the hypothetical case depends on the full context of the statement. However, I wouldn't be surprised if an editor who had a habit of giving useless or dangerous advice in response to questions on the Desks were warned about it, and blocked if necessary.

As an aside, we should also try to avoid giving even 'good' tangential medical advice to questions that aren't seeking advice. In your hypothetical case, someone might offer an unsolicited recommendation to take daily aspirin doses to help prevent heart attacks, for example. It's 'good' advice for some people, under some conditions, but not something that should be done without a doctor's advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I must point out that the question clearly asked about the amount of vitamin C that a person can take. It did not ask if vitamin C could be used to treat any illness. It did not ask about combining vitamin C with any other medications. It clearly stated that we get vitamin C from many sources: supplements, food, and cold medicine to name a few. Then it asked if there was some level that we should take and some level we should avoid. That is merely a dosage question. What is the proper dosage of vitamin C would be the simplified question. I do not see the need to rationalize that the person asked about treating some illness or mixing medications - except that it justifies your faulty point of view that it is a question about medical advice. --

™

23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. So I, original poster, having read all your arguments on the subject, understand (sort of) why the post was removed, but still want an answer to my question. I'm perfectly willing to recede to the hypothetical. Is there such a thing as an overdose of Vitamin C, within, say the limits of a vitamin pill and a pack of Emergen-C? As in, will there be any side effects? I appreciate the theoretical argument you guys are having about wikipedia's health policy and all that, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that if somebody were to suggest that I down three Emergen-C's a day, or take a couple multivitamins every night, I'd unquestionably take them up on their advice. I'm not stupid. I don't plan on heavily "ODing" on any regular basis, not to mention once. But there is a product, that is offered with essentially no published health warnings, which offers a boost of vitamin C to help your immune system, and since I've got a cold coming on, I was interested in knowing whether it in fact is effective and whether the philosophy behind such a product (the more vitamins the merrier) makes any sense. We are not dealing with addictive or remotely dangerous substances here. Nobody is giving me dangerous advice (that I'm not intelligent enough to ignore), and, in fact, the alternatives, that I take the vitamin because nobody has told me important information about overdosing, and then suffer consequent adverse health effects, is significantly worse than anything that could be caused by anybody simply answering the question in a straightforward manner. I also thought it was fairly clear from the way I asked my question ("What's the deal with all this vitamining" etc, not to mention that I'm asking a question from a perspective that shows my intrinsic doubt about "vitamining"s benefits) that I don't actually consider starting an excessive vitamin-eating regiment an intelligent idea, especially without answers from an actual doctor. I was just curious as to what scientifically goes on in a human body when it receives and "excess" of vitamins, and, theoretically, if there is no such cap, why stop at one packet and not go on? Is vitamin C different in this way from others? Thanks, 140.247.42.168 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if all that made any difference, you are not the only one reading the desk.

The articles on the different vitamins should tell you all you want to know about the matter, and if after you've read them you have any questions about the facts, please feel free to ask. Don't let all this upset you. Wikipedia is a place where everybody wrangles over everything. It's part of the fun. --Milkbreath 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

to 140.247.42.168: I think you should think carefully about the nature of a wiki website like Wikipedia. In my view, the main purpose of the reference desk is to point people towards existing Wikipedia articles. Any Wikipedia article is just a starting point.....good Wikipedia articles cite reliable sources and they should be your real destination. In some cases, the available Wikipedia resources are not yet very good, and so you might also get a suggestion from a ref desk participant directing you to go directly to another source of information outside of Wikipedia. Sometimes a good ref desk question helps us improve existing Wikipedia articles or motivates us to start new ones. If a ref desk participant gives you an answer without providing a path to a reliable published source then you should not put much trust in the response. --JWSchmidt 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin C isn't regulated in Australia. Anyone's qualified to give advice on vitamins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psud (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I smell a troll. Can an admin take a look? Is this the right place to broach this? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's user:Barringa. See last February's AN and ANI, as well as last March too. Personally, I suggest ignoring and reverting since he could only be range-blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Clio's warning above ("Antisemitism"), by the way. 71.100 is one of those initial number sequences worth remembering. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye to all you good people at the refdesks - can't cope with the bollocks elsewhere on wikipedia anymore. My email link at userpage should still work if you want to chat to a curmudgeonly Cornish mindless-policy-wonk! Best wishes to you all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, even in my short time here, hope you return in the future. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Adios to you, Duncan - but maybe you could abandon all except the Reference Desks? You wouldn't be alone. Xn4 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both - we've had our disagreements here, which makes your good wishes all the more appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's any of my business but the more good people leave, the more room there is for the bastards and their progeny. Illegitimi non carborundum. I have certainly much appreciated your contributions to the refdesk. Keria (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sort of back, but likely to be editing with substantially lowered levels of energy for a while. Thank you everyone who has been so kind and supportive, it has helped me enormously. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear, I mainly hang out on the ref desk and only correct things I see as I go along in the main encyclopedia, I don't really edit. Also you have to remember it's not about the individuals and the discussions (read: arguments), it's about maintaining Wikipedia as a whole and for all of us, helping people on the desks. Don't lets throw the baby out with the bath water, we'd rather keep you here. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

we'd rather keep you here if only to share the pain around more evenly :). --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again - my thanks. I now appear to have created an article which has been nominated for the Did you know thingy, so am doubly glad you have persuaded me to stay! DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost as satisfying doing the nominating.. track down wherever they decide on the DYK, the wiki news, the featured pictures, etc (NOT the featured articles); it's very easy to get content to appear on the front page if you but track it down. I say not FAs because the FA process is insane --ffroth 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Duncan—want a tip? Click "logout". Then go back to the Ref Desk. You'll be surprised how much freer you feel from the rest of the nonsense on the 'pedia, and you'll no longer have a watchlist to obsess over or a talk page full of old baggage. Worked for me, anyhow. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns? Apparently you live near Methuen, Massachusetts (in the area between Methuen and Cambridge probably), which has a zipcode of 01844. The average value of a home in that zipcode is about $156,000, making it a lower-middle class area if I know my New England. Just be aware that this is all public information, and that there are ip geolocation databases --ffroth 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wrong on all accounts except for the state and general area ("in the area between Menthuen and Cambridge" covers half a dozen cities). IPs tell you were the ISP is located; doesn't mean it tells you where I am located. New England is a varied place; pick the wrong city and you're in a totally different income bracket, totally different place. These aren't the sorts of privacy concerns that worry me. Nor should they worry Duncan—he happily offers up the city he lives in (and the city he grew up in) in his user page. In fact, I can find out about you just by knowing your name (which you happily offer up on yours) than you can from my IP address. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I do currently live in a city (and was born in another), I would like to point out that i did not grow up in a city! DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good show! I use the term "city" pretty inspecifically, as do I think many Americans. :-) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My aunt lives in Massachusetts, and her "city" would just about qualify as a small town in England. It has its own police force, fire brigade, education authority, traffic laws and licensing laws. I'm generally in favour of subsidiarity, but just sometimes I think it can be taken a tad too far! DuncanHill (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Froth didn't check the IP address correctly. It comes up in

™

13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wat??!!! You can't leave!!! We need you here!--68.157.18.183 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested there is some relevant information to be found, about the risks of providing medical advice online, in the November 2007 issue of Wired. According to the Director of the High Tech Law Institute, a medical disclaimer does not make the person providing medical advice lawsuit proof, he says it may "ameliorate the risks, but too often people over-rely on them." A lawyer who specializes in such cases notes that when "engaging in particularized discussions" about medical conditions online one's legal position becomes "a whole lot riskier." Rockpocket 01:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the on-line version: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_kia.  --Lambiam 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind, too, is that our policy against offering medical advice isn't solely for the purpose of covering anyone's ass from a legal standpoint—we're also interested in avoiding harm to Wikipedia and it's readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "cover your ass" both medical and legal advice?  --Lambiam 13:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also a safety tip for anyone who goes to jail after taking legal advice from strangers on the internet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One is allowed to take one's donkey to prison? DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, people have to carefully weigh their words in conversation lest they be thrown in prision for illegal speech. Totalitarianism, ho! *fog horn* Culture of fear for the win! --ffroth 04:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of nobody here that feels we should be able to give medical advice in the Reference Desk. However, I do know of many examples where medical information (such as the name of body part or the RDA for a vitamin) were considered medical advice and removed from the Reference Desk. Does this article strengthen the argument that anything that can be rationalized to have anything to do with the medical field should be banned from the Reference Desk? --

™

23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It simply reinforces the legal (in addition to the ethical and moral) reasons why one should think twice before giving what may be construed to be medical advice, even if one doesn't mean it in that way. I think they key phrase is "particularized discussions" - which is different from general questions about the medical field. Rockpocket 01:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Large

You'd have to talk to the super-high-ups with access to the common monobook CSS/Javascript files, since they'd be the only ones who could implement it. Try asking at village pump --ffroth 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it there.Philcha (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

{{

I guess this is a request to somehow fix the link [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز مرجع]] in the list of interwiki links on Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header – which is not a protected page. Unfortunately, it is not clear what it should be changed to.  --Lambiam 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing, I don't know either :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted this in on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice, but no one responded. Despite the note above, this page appears to be the place of discussion for the issue of medical and legal advice.

I think the guideline stating we should delete medical and legal questions may be based on a misconception.

I am not a lawyer (as we say), but I cannot imagine that simply giving medical or legal advice is against the law anywhere in the United States.

If a co-worker comes into the office complaining of a cold, and I suggest that she have some chicken soup, am I breaking the law? I can't imagine so.

My guess is that it would be illegal to charge people for medical or legal advice without a license, or to give medical or legal advice under the false pretense of being a doctor or lawyer.

The Wired advice column mentioned above refers to a doctor's website. In the doctor's case, he could get in trouble for offering medical advice that turns out wrong because he's doing so as a doctor. He could get sued for malpractice or get in trouble with his licensing body. That obviously can't apply to amateurs on a free, open forum who aren't claiming to be professionals.

If I'm right, we should not warn against asking for "regulated professional advice," since the guideline would not be a response to a legal concern.

We still may want to avoid giving out medical or legal advice for ethical reasons, but the guidelines should be written accordingly. -- Mwalcoff 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am not a lawyer (as we say), but I cannot imagine that simply giving medical or legal advice is against the law anywhere in the United States."

This is a perfect example of one of the many reasons we do not give medical or legal advice. Legally, morally and from a PR point of view, giving such advice is a Bad Thing. 130.88.140.4 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many times, however, somebody asks a simple question, and people will refuse to answer it on the ground that it is a "legal" or "medical" question. The question may have just been, "can I do X in Y?" People are just looking for information, lighten up. It is a good policy, but go with the spirit, not with the letter, as stated in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means--Omnipotence407 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are occasional errors in judgement made as to what constitutes a legal or medical question. It is important not to confuse 'a question on the topic of medicine' with 'a question seeking medical advice'. Where I see such an error made, I will offer a polite correction on the involved editor's talk page. Usually that suffices to resolve the problem. If anyone is uncomfortable approaching such an editor, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do—or leave a polite summary of the situation on this talk page and we can discuss things.

What I've found doesn't help – and I'm not directing this comment at anyone in particular – is someone starting an edit war on the Ref Desk page itself. Nasty things get said, people get stubborn, the meta-discussion overwhelms any sort of answer that might be offered, and the mess eventually gets filed in the archive without any sort of resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guideline (

Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice

) actually explicitly notes that we are not making legal or professional judgements about what constitutes the 'practice of medicine' for legal purposes. In general, our purpose in having and enforcing this guideline is not simply to do the minimum required to avoid and evade criminal or civil liability. As the anon IP notes, we're aiming for a higher standard—to avoid physical harm, to avoid emotional or psychological damage, to avoid legal risk, and to limit the Desk and Wikipedia's exposure to potential public relations disasters.

I agree that the nutshell version of the policy in the header is not entirely clear on this point. While asking for 'regulated professional advice' is certainly a no-no, our actual rules are a bit more cautious and set a somewhat higher bar than that. The wording is a bit of a tradeoff between keeping the header a manageable size and including sufficient detail to get our point across. (For what it's worth, I'm not entirely happy with it either, and I'm not sure exactly when it was modified to its current version.) If you can suggest an alternative phrasing, it would be considered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I will take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my essay on why we don't give medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind that people trust Wikipedia, irrationally so. If somebody asks a question and gets an answer here, however facetious or ill-conceived, they may act on it, believing it is okay because Wikipedia said so. That's not a good risk! SaundersW 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Do not ask questions that require the expertise of a doctor or a lawyer. People who respond to Reference Desk questions may not be qualified to answer such inquiries. To avoid the risk of harm coming to users from following uninformed advice on medical or legal issues, such questions

may be removed." Or something like that. -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That "require the expertise" phrasing may not be sufficiently exact. Many folk do not think that their questions "require the expertise of a doctor", and many answer providers do not, either. At the end of the day, any time someone asks "Should I take X or Y?" "How much X or Y is healthy, how much is too little, how much is overdose", even if X or Y is aspirin, Vitamin C, garlic... a stranger on the internet does not know if you have a heart problem, liver problem, or allergy. Posters might not include this information - even if those conditions are diagnosed, rather than unknown - simply because they do not realize that, say, drinking excessively has an impact on what dosage of aspirin you can safely consume. Responders, being by definition anyone, cannot reasonably be assumed to recognize or consider these factors. So, to avoid giving bad medical advice, the Reference Desk avoids anything that looks like a question of diagnosis or treatment. That's not unreasonable. 68.45.87.76 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about making the first sentence simply "Do not request medical or legal advice.", then keeping the rest as I suggested. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly more explicit, I would think, for the purpose of warning users - I'd be fine with it.

Unfortunately, it probably won't clear up the editor debate on what constitutes "medical or legal advice" for the purpose of a question once it's posted. And although users are warned not to use Wikipedia as a scholarly citation, every educator I know complains of it from students - so users will trust even what they are told not to. Please understand, this is not to rain on the parade - The disclaimer sounds decent - I just wanted to warn that the underlying issue will likely continue, since a certain degree of interpretation is always necessary - and that'll always include some debate.68.45.87.76 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is copied from the talk page for professional advice, which seems to be nothing more than a black hole for uncomfortable topics:

I removed a question from the Science desk because it was asking for a prognosis on a medical condition. See it here. Another editor reverted my removal. I don't know what to do next. I'm reluctant to start a ping-pong game, but you could say the game has already started. It seems to me that it was "pointy" of the other editor to revert like that. Shouldn't such a reversion be discussed first? --Milkbreath 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a question very plainly not requesting medical advice, but biological information. Further, the question has nothing to do with a medical condition. It's no less innocuous than asking how long it takes hair to grow back after nairing yourself. Yet further, the OP gives no hint of concern about even a possible medical condition. The medical advice ban exists so people don't mistake us for doctors, not so they can't learn about the human body. If the OP had expressed concern that what was happening to him wasn't normal, this would be an entirely different story, but he didn't. Someguy1221 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is different. I'm hoping for a third party to provide a third opinion, and to let me know if an edit war is the only way to handle this. I've never been in an edit war, but I've heard vague things about them. They sound unpleasant, and I'd always imagined that they were the result of either one person's being malicious or both people's being wrong. Since I'm right, and I don't think you are malicious, I'm in a quandary. By the way, "no less innocuous" makes my head spin—nice one. --Milkbreath 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't expect to change your mind, I really just posted here so that yet-to-arrive third opinion could read the first two. And I believe that edit wars result from each side possessing different definitions for one or more words without realizing it (or both sides being composed of idiots). Someguy1221 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Professional_advice" --Milkbreath 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of what I consider a biological question being incorrectly classified as a request for medical advice. The person never asked for medical advice. He (assuming it is a he) asked two things: At what rate do human intestines shrink? At what rate does human skin shrink? Both are biological questions - not questions about medical diagnoses or medical treatments. There is absolutely no reason to not provide an answer for those questions. --

™

20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Kainaw here. We're not being asked to give advice about how the person in question should diet, nor how to determine what their healthy weight is, nor anything of that type. I have difficulty reading the question as seeking a prognosis, though I can certainly see tangential discussion heading that way. Bonus points, of course, to Vespine's answer, which reminds the poster to speak to his doctor if he is concerned about sequelae of weight loss, and describes some of the factors at work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I read "how long will it take for my intestines to shrink" as a request for a prognosis, but whatever. The issue isn't so much whose interpretation was right (mine, of course) as the pre-emptive reversion. My first instinct was to re-revert, which would be followed by a re-re-revert, etc. I think it would be better to discuss before reverting, as I was following the guidelines to the best of my ability, and they say to just go ahead and remove the question, not to discuss it first. I can't get my head around what the process is supposed to be, unless it's supposed to be that if two editors disagree they bat the question back and forth until one of them bumps up against the three-revert rule like Darby O'Gill. I don't want that, and that's why I'm here now. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What's supposed to happen is pretty much what just happened here, although possibly starting the discussion before the revert stage would have been better (we could always have put the question back at the bottom with a note in its original position if the discussion-time was judged to have reduced the question's exposure to good answers). Your first instinct is how edit wars start, just because that is exactly most people's first instinct. But remember, on the desks and on Wikipedia in general, you are not in a vacuum; you are surrounded by the community. It should never come down to you and one other editor batting something back and forth, because there are other people to involve. Deleting the question was the Right Thing To Do at first, as you considered it clearly medical advice. Bringing the matter here when someone disagreed was also the Right Thing To Do, as someone disagreeing indicates that perhaps it was not clearly medical advice. Calmly discussing the matter here and getting other people's views was also the Right Thing To Do. And the final Right Thing To Do is to go with the community consensus (which is not exactly the same thing as the majority view, but usually near enough on the desks).

In brief (I seem to have got carried away): You done good, Someguy done good, this went pretty much perfectly. Well done. Skittle (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A brief note on Milkbreath's interpretation of the question... If he had asked "how long will it take for my intestines to shrink," I could see it getting into a fuzzy area. What he actually asked was "how long will it take your intestines to shrink." By "your", he was referring to everyone on the reference desk. That means that he was not asking for a diagnosis of a problem he has. He was asking for a general estimate for any human.

A non-brief note on this topic... It is my opinion that the problem lies in the fact that the questioners do not know anything about this whole "medical advice" debate. So, they do not know that questions have to be painstakingly edited to avoid any possible hint at a request for medical advice. As such, they carelessly give background information (such as noting that they recently lost weight). That is very common. I could ask, "What kind of bug has at least a thousand legs and looks like a long black worm?" or I could ask, "I went camping and I saw this bug. What kind of bug has at least a thousand legs and look like a long black worm?" Framing a question in personal experience is common and should not be taken as an excuse to discount a question as a request for medical advice. That is the basis for my complaints here. It is one thing to remove answers that provide unwarranted medical advice. It is another to remove questions that are not asking for medical advice because someone might possibly answer with medical advice. --

™

13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dang. I thought this was done. Yeah, I screwed up the quote like an idiot, but he does go on to say "my skin". Are we now pretending that he wasn't talking about his own intestines? Here's the whole question: "I lost about 50 pounds over the last 8 month and I was wondering how long it takes for your intestines to shrink (someone was telling me they shrink after you lose weight) and also for my skin to tighten up. It doesn't look loose, but I heard it tightens up even more." The OP expressed concern about his own physical status, and I don't want anybody here to be another "someone" who "was telling" him about the progress of post-obesity recovery. Who wants to field the part about shrinking intestines,

Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine or Dr. Howard? --Milkbreath (talk

) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me start over. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is supposed to be bad. Reverting my removal was just that. Assumption of good faith is a starting point, not carte blanche for those with an agenda, such as those with some sort of "inclusionist" axe to grind. Consensus can't be arrived at in an enormous place like Wikipedia by the process of having a few zealots gang up on one they perceive as an enemy. I'm losing faith in the process, mostly because of the low level of participation on this page, and increasingly because of the way the truth gets twisted to serve some people's agendas. I'm starting to feel free to do things the way I see fit, and let the chips fall where they may. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I would recommend reading

WP:POINT to see why suggesting reverting your removal was violating this doesn't quite work. Secondly, Someguy was following the process, as were you, and both of you were motivated by improving Wikipedia and doing what you thought was best. Nobody has ganged up on anyone else in this discussion; I'd say it has actually been pretty civilised. Personally, I probably would have discussed rather than reverting, but discussing after that revert was also good. If you feel yourself getting angry and annoyed with the system, I advise taking a little break. I haven't noticed this particular discussion being anywhere near as unpleasant and devisive as you appear to have felt it, and I think you're reaching an ideal wikibreak point. We all need one every so often; your last sentence pretty much sums up how you know it's time :) Read a book, go out dancing, watch a film, have a good night's sleep, then return refreshed and see what it looks like. Sometimes I've needed to take a week or more, but it's better than letting yourself get more and more wound up. Skittle (talk

) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. Thing is, I can take it. My contempt for the whole human race protects me, but it makes my mode of expression a bit harsh sometimes, I'm afraid. I think that's what you're sensing. I'm not so much angry as disillusioned, which is usually a good thing in the long run. I just am not seeing an alternative to being as hard-headed and proactive as the zealots. I have no agenda other than making Wikipedia the great thing it can be, and if my actions toward that end get me in trouble here, then I don't belong here, and it's better to find that out sooner than later. I've been kicked out of better parties than this one.

The reason I say the reversion was pointy is simply that the guidelines say to remove, and that's what I did. To unilaterally override that removal subverts that policy and makes it null and void. If the policy said to tag the question with a link to talk, I would have done that. If the policy said to dispute the question on the desk, I would have done that. Your link (and most other policy pages) doesn't seem to have been written with the Reference Desks in mind. Things are more immediate here. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you were following guidelines, but so was Someguy. You both did exactly what you were supposed to do. It might have been even better if Someguy had brought up the topic here before reverting, but not much. Someguy wasn't over-riding policy, they were following it. And reverts are allowed for (although not always advisable) in certain circumstances. In this case, the circumstance was that you both were trying to improve the desks, but you felt this question was clearly medical advice and Someguy felt it was clearly not. Reverting that is not 'pointy'. If the guideline that 'pointy' refers to does not appear to apply to the reference desks, perhaps don't use it in discussion of reference desk behaviour? It attributes motives to others that are rarely justified. 'Pointy' behaviour would more closely describe, for example, the brief creation of the Seagull desk.

What happened with the question was policy, and was just what is supposed to happen. Characterising others as 'zealots', 'inclusionists' or 'having an axe to grind' doesn't help with analysing the situation. I really think you are showing all the signs of needing a break before you do something out-of-character, and in an attempt to encourage this break I'll try not to reply to any comment you put here, so there's no temptation to check back. Skittle (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At some point there has to be a debate. Does that happen when the original question is posted? Does it happen after the first revert? The second? The third? We know that we have

WP:3RR

in place to disallow more than 3 reversions in any 24 hour period - but that's considered an upper limit, which if breached is an actual offense that could get you a Wiki-block. Certainly we shouldn't get even close to that!

I don't think it's worth coming here to debate the original question before it's removed - after all, when the question is first posted, there might not be any debate at all about removing it - so there is no point in delaying and debating if you think it's utterly obvious. So - if you see a bad question and you think it should be removed (as Milkbreath did), go ahead and per WP:Be bold, remove it without debate. The problem comes when the second person (Someguy in this case) reverts it again...this is a little dubious. We already have a situation where Someguy knows that he and Milkbreath don't agree...so replacing the question is guaranteed to be a contentious thing to do and there should be some debate here about it. On the other hand, all the while the question is removed, we may be upsetting the OP and preventing a legitimate question from being answered - so arguably, the question should be left there until some kind of consensus can be reached. So, my view is this:

1. If you see a bad question that you think should be removed, go ahead and do it without debating it.
2. If you disagree about the removal of a question - put it back AND start a thread here to allow debate on the matter.
3. If (as in this case) someone reverts your deletion without starting a debate - then complain vigerously - and start a debate here immediately but don't remove the question again.
4. If you re-remove it before consensus has been reached then you are definitely in the wrong - and we might call this an edit war.
5. If you revert 3 times in one day - expect someone to set an admin on you!

So, IMHO: in this case, Milkbreath was right to revert once - and right not to revert again - and right to start the debate here. Someguy was right to replace the question - but wrong to not immediately come here to explain why.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One of our OP's just gave me a barnstar - which was nice. But it occurs to me that there isn't a Ref.Desk barnstar. Many Wiki projects have them - why not us?

I'd be happy to draw one (I did the automotive project barnstar) - although it's more traditional to ask for contributions and vote. Does anyone have any ideas?

SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• 
  (1) Sciences humaines
• 
  (2) Creatures of the reference desk
• 
  (3) A typical RD voluntee
• 
  (5) How about this with a barnstar kinda subtly inserted?
• 
  (6) SteveBaker's first effort
• 
  (7) The "I need you" Barnstar
• 
  (8) The Chocolate Barnstar (too dark)
• 
  (9) The Library Barnstar
• 
  (10) The hairy starfish Barnstar
• 
  (11) The flower starfish Barnstar

For the RefDesk Article Collaboration WikiProject, this image from Commons (Sciences humaines.svg) is used. Perhaps it might be suitable for working into a RefDesk Barnstar? Xn4 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always loved those hats. Adding some more stars, because the volunteers are surprising and swirly creatures who crawl across the deep sea floor looking for information, and only get

brittle when dehydrated. ---Sluzzelin talk

10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the image somehow (I have no immediate idea how) convey the idea that the RD volunteers are like librarians?  --Lambiam 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ook! - Eron^Talk 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooook! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Following Sluzzelin's thought, the motto of the Barnstar could be "Squamous, omnipotent and kind"? Xn4 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That should probably be "squamous, omniscient, and kind", methinks. Does anyone know how to say that in Latin? I suppose someone could ask at the appropriate Desk.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys, no beards...please! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this for a librarian without a beard?  --Lambiam 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not upset the shade of Rupert Brooke. Nor the wearers of the better kind of beard. Xn4 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - Squameus, omnipotens ac benevolus Xn4 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Not 'omnipotens' - we need 'omniscient'...which is probably the same deal: 'omnisciens'. SteveBaker (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One immediate problem with Barnstars is that they are typically displayed at 100x100 pixels. If we had "Squameus, omnisciens ac benevolus", as a motto, that's 32 characters - so figure each letter is 3 pixels wide - utterly illegible. We could put the text on three lines - so we'd have a more respectable 10 pixels per letter - but then the text is more like 50 pixels high - which eats up half of the space and leaves hardly any left over for an actual star. Perhaps the text could be arranged in a circle with the star in the middle. I like the starfish star in the image above - although the finer detail is going to get washed out at 100x100 pixels. SteveBaker (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Ack! This page is getting unreadable. Please put additional images into the gallery and number them so we can talk about them easily.) SteveBaker (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why "squamous"? The brittle stars in the image are not covered with scales. I think they may be called "brittle" for their propensity to give up an arm to escape a predator. In Latin, "brittle" can be fragilis. I'm not so sure I'd readily shed an arm to escape an RD predator, though, my regenerative capacities with respect to limbs being somewhat challenged. Also, the word omnisciens is gender-neutral, but squameus and benevolus are not. The latter could be replaced by gender-neutral benevolens.  --Lambiam 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I'm afraid it was a whimsical thought, based on Sluzzelin's "swirly creatures who crawl across the deep sea floor" and the poem Heaven ("Fish, fly-replete, in depth of June, Dawdling away their wat'ry noon...") Attempts to turn it into Latin and to tweak 'omnipotent' into 'omniscient' don't much help the joke. If a thoroughly serious slogan is wanted, do please forget it! Xn4 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the best ideas come about that way! I don't think we need 100% serious. Barnstars are frequently silly or funny. A serious sounding latin phrase is rather neat because it looks library-ish and formal - but if future recipients discover on translation that this weird word "squamous" has been used (which, let's face it, not many people know) - then even better that it has to be looked up and found to mean "scaley". I like that word because it implies an armoured, tough, resilient kind of a creature - which is precisely what you need to be to survive in this weird environment. SteveBaker (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a few admins about I'd shed an arm to see the back of.... DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the motto

In a more modest vein, Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit, which I think suggests the collaborative nature of the desks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which being freely translated means "No man is at all time wise". Steve, you're right, this would be better as a motto for the desks than for a barnstar. DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about modesty. We aren't using this as our emblem - it's an award to be given in praise of some particular high achievement. Modesty is the LAST thing we need. Efflusive praise is what's needed here! Also, for us non-linquists, could people who post latin mottoes please supply the translation! Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We should remember that this isn't supposed to be an emblem of the RD (although it might be argued that the RD could use a nice emblem - we can use something much more detailed for that since it wouldn't be constrained to 100x100 pixels). But what we're talking about here is an award to be given to RD denizens by grateful OP's - or (perhaps more rarely) by other RD folk who see some especially valuable reply or contribution. Being omniscient, kind and resilient/tenacious are traits that are valuable here - and that makes them the right kind of thing to put on the award. Perhaps scaley is a bit odd - but squamous is such a beautiful word, it's hard to resist. We could even say that the award is supposed to be given to people who come up with information that is true, was hard to find and who exhibited particular helpfulness to the OP. The brittle-star is just a beautiful thing - it suits the high-relief brush-script of the text and it looks just enough like a barnstar to be usable here - this particular drawing of it has an air of science and that late victorian art style that somehow conveys that this came from a book in a dusty old library somewhere. But if we want to go with this general idea - we'd better get the latin utterly 100% perfect! My son is taking Latin in school - if we can agree on final wording, I can run the translation past his teacher. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded and galleried the "I need you", the Chocolate and the Library Barnstars tests. Excuse: I was drunk! Keria (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Althoug maybe a combination of the original barnstar and the creature image might look good.

Uploaded The hairy starfish Barnstar and The flower starfish Barnstar Keria (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For an earlier proposal, not universally acclaimed, see Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive10#Wise Man Award.  --Lambiam 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, *feels smooth chin* ---Sluzzelin talk 10:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It deserved to fail: (a) it was sexist, (b) it was a terrible picture - at 100x100 resolution, it could be ANYTHING, (c) being wise isn't the sole qualification for being awarded the star - it could be tenacity for example, (d) it didn't look remotely like a barnstar (which is a bad sign for something that's supposed to suggests that a barnstar has been awarded!) SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are people so wary about the possibility that they may be answering homework questions. It's not like wikipedia is going to get sued for it, not like medical or legal advice.

If the answer could be interesting to people, then an answer will help some people.

Besides, at the Humanities desk in particular, it's almost impossible to tell a homework question from a general interest question. E.g. why is this beleived to be a homework question and not answered:

In Ancient China, what were the gods that were worshipped, the beliefs and ways of life they followed? And compare this to Catholic religious beliefs, what are the similarities and differences between them?

and this was answered, (less interesting since I could open any book and get the answer) :

Why did Germany declare war on the United States in December 1941 when it was under no obligation to do so?

Yes the wording might be odd on the first, but I could imagine wording it like that myself (as general interest). Both could very easily be homework questions but so could most questions. Was this policy ever discussed? Caffm8 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes suspect that those of us who grew up in environments where we were encouraged to seek out knowledgeable people to help us with our homework aren't bothered by the possibility of helping someone else with theirs. DuncanHill (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm also interested in the fact that whether or not medical/legal questions are answered is often debated on this talk page (when there are excellent reasons they shouldn't be). But the no-homework policy never is, and all that implies is that someone you don't know is maybe not trying hard enough at school. Caffm8 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The only remote policy I've seen is the use of the {{dyoh}} template. It goes to extreme lengths to state that the question may not be homework and apologizes if it is not homework. Of course, some users still snap into a furious rage at the mere implication that their question may be homework (in fact, I've seen people who didn't ask the question rant about the use of the dyoh template). Nothing in the template suggests that others should not answer the question. It doesn't suggest that the question should be deleted. It merely suggests that the questioner try to do his or her own homework first and then ask specific questions if there is something in the question that they are having trouble understanding. --

™

18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But it still doesn't give a rational for it. What's the point of this (almost completely unused) template? Just to scream "I think your doing homework, I could answer the question but i don't want to, nah nah". If that's the only point, just don't answer the bloody question and leave it to someone else. Caffm8 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the template doesn't scream anything and goes to great lengths to explain that it merely suggests that the person attempts to answer the question his or herself, ending with the suggestion that they ask again if need be. The perception that it is screaming is the problem, not the template itself. It is my opinion that those who are angered by it are those who are asking homework questions and feel that they just got caught cheating. I've seen questions posted that are very hard to read as non-homework questions (similar to: "8. Explain in 100 words or more the differences between the implementation of communism in China and in Russia from 1930 to 1960. Include references to chapters 8, 10, and 15 of your textbook."). When told that it appears to be homework, the questioner calls everyone nasty names and claims that all of Wikipedia is against him or her for asking a simple question. When it is not a homework question, the questioner simply replies that it is not a homework question without any anger at all. --

™

18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But, that question is obviously homework so anyone who doesn't like answering homework questions wont answer it. The user almost certainly does not need to be told that they should do their own homework. They have almost certainly been told this before. So it serves no purpose other than show your annoyance to the user. Which doesn't seem very helpful.

Also, such a question would never be answered in a form they could copy and paste as their answer. But, if the question is interesting, then it could be of use to people (not just the OP). Caffm8 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that telling a person to do their own homework serves no purpose. You state your opinion as fact without any proof. When given any form of opinion that differs from yours, you restate your opinion as fact without proof. Do you simply want everyone to agree with you? If so, why ask any questions? --

™

18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

err, yeah that's my opinion. You didn't say what purpose you thought it served just pointed out that the template was polite, so I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone. I asked my question to get other peoples opinions, not really to discuss how polite the template was and how users are wrong to get angered by it. Caffm8 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that telling people to do their own homework reinforces the message that they should be attempting to do their homework before asking someone else to answer the question for them. This is no different than telling a child to wash his or her hands after using the restroom. Sure - they've been told before, but repetition reinforces the message. My point about the template is that it is nothing like the ban on medical or legal advice - which is what the initial question brought up. It does not ban others from answering the homework question and does not attempt to imply that the questioner shouldn't continue asking questions. So, to sum up - I feel that comparing the dyoh template to medical/legal advice is a bad analogy since homework questions are not (from what I've seen) completely removed from the reference desk. Telling people to do their own homework reinforces the message that they should be doing their own homework. If that is banned, should we ban those who answer with a link to an article and a note that the questioner should use the search box? --

™

19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that the dyoh template does, if used properly, point the questioner to articles that usually contain the answers they want but don't want to search for. So, another use - it points questioners to the answers and asks them to at least scan an article on the topic they asked about. --

™

19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like reading the curt message "Do your own homework!" a lot either, Caffm8. That being said, some volunteers have teaching experience, and are concerned about any educational disservice we may be providing. It has been discussed here occasionally, but certainly not as often as the medical thingy. If I find time later, I will try to link to the relevant threads in the archives for you. I think the situation is slightly different betwixt the Math and Science desks on the one hand, and the Humanities and Language desks on the other hand, but in any case, I have hardly ever seen a question where it wasn't possible to assist with homework without actually providing a result that would be mindlessly copied by a pupil. The Math deskians are really good at handling this approach, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I must mention, I do understand why the policy probably exists, because otherwise people would just start posting hundreds of HW questions.

And yes, there is a bit of a difference between Humanities and the others, the answer to a science question like "Balance this equation" is never useful to anyone other than the OP, but the answers to history questions are often interesting.

But this isn't school and we are actually allowed to answer homework questions. Caffm8 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sluzzelin makes a good point- we can be helpful without just providing outright answers. As our purpose here is educational, we should aim at educating. We should not aim at helping people avoid becoming educated. Friday (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What is the point in doing someone's homework for them? We are perfectly happy to help people with their homework, but this is not the same as doing it for them. It's not about reducing the number of questions asked, its not about getting sued (to be honest, I don't think any of the guidelines are really about getting sued), it's about what an educational service should be. If someone asks you to do their homework for them, and you do it, you have harmed them. If you provide them with help to do it themselves, you have helped them. It's not a hard decision. Skittle (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll not bang on about it much longer...

I suppose my point was that questions (and the answers) have value for more than the original poster, the answer is available to all and not necessarily "to" anyone. I would have liked to hear from someone knowledgeable about Ancient Chinese gods so even if the OP just copied and pasted the answer into his homework, I (and others) would have at least had value.

I think that even though it's not forbidden to answer them, people are less inclined to do so, or give a lower quality answer, if they are on the look out for homework questions and especially if someone has put a note saying they think it's a homework question. Caffm8 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is that the template keeps others from answering the question - perhaps the template should specifically state that others should feel free to answer the question. It is not a "finished" template and should be changed so that it serves its function the best way possible. --

™

20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the template. If you don't want to answer a question - then don't answer it. One of the most important functions of homework (and in my opinion the only valid reason for setting homework) is to encourage students to seek out knowledge and information from a range of sources unavailable in the classroom. It's about process rather than content. Learning to ask, and how to ask, is what it's about. When someone comes to the reference desk they are doing just that. We currently have the frankly bizarre situation where postgrad students blatantly ask for, and get, help with their research, but kids who think "I know, I'll ask those brainy guys on the refdesks for a hand" get slapped down. Personally, I would ban homework altogether - schools should have "prep lessons", and let kids enjoy their own time without having to stress over something that (if it is important) should be dealt with in school. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the templates aren't really for the questioners. They are for the answerers. Consider the sheer number of people reading these questions. Now, if a question looks like homework, someone is going want to tell the questioner that it looks like homework and suggest articles to read. The template makes it easier to give a boilerplate (polite) response rather than go off on a rant about students not doing their own homework. This is similar to the vandalism templates, the welcome templates, the how to start your first article templates, and so on. Of course, I've already stated my opinion about students "getting slapped down" with the template. I see it this way: If you are walking out of a store drinking a coke and the clerk asks if you bought it, you just say that you did and keep walking. If you did steal it, you get confrontational to hide the fact that you just stole a coke. The reactions here are the same. If you ask a question and a boilerplate template says that it appears that it may be a homework question and suggests articles to read, you just reply that it isn't homework and possibly give a thanks for the good articles. If it is a homework question, you become confrontational and rant about being accused of asking others to do your homework. It is simple human (and animal) nature. --

™

01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this all point to not using the template in the first place, but writing out words and sentences forming a useful reply instead? I'd like to stress the word and in kainaw's "someone is going want to tell the questioner that it looks like homework and suggest articles to read". Articles, other references, approaches, etc. I advocate giving the querent something in one's reply when pointing out what looks like homework. If I worked ina library, I'd help a student look for relevant books. I don't see the need for templates. Perhaps they do make it easier to respond without going off on a rant, but why go off in a rant at all? We generally try to keep our soapboxes in the closet. Why should this be any different for the topic homework? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I submit that in many, perhaps most cases in which respondents react to a question they perceive to be homework, they react in a decidedly less courteous way than if they had used {{dyoh}}. Our

Reference desk guidelines state: "The reference desk is not a service that will do homework for others. It should be made clear to questioners that we will give assistance in interpreting questions, help with ideas and concepts, and attempt to point them to resources that might help them to complete their tasks, but that in the end they should do the actual work themselves." Most respondents don't do this; the template text does, and it would have been better if they had used the template rather than give a curt, sometimes even rude, response.  --Lambiam

13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough (though I've seen subtle, graceful, and polite references to a question's homeworkiness). I guess it boils down to a personal distaste for templates in general, while the community seems to find them useful. So, I won't pursue this any further. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people keep calling it the Humanties Desk in error, it is actually called the Homework Desk. Pffft. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical situation, which may help clarify certain aspects of this discussion (or at least my feelings about it). You are an expert on [insert subject here]. Your nephew has been set some homework relating to your specialism. He approaches you - "Uncle RefDesk, can you help me with this?" Do you a) delight in the opportunity of sharing your knowledge with an enquiring young mind, throwing in hints and tips about how he can find out even more stuff, or b) send him away with a flea in his ear? DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another hypothetical scenario: "Auntie RD, can you do my homework for me:

Fill in the blanks:

1. 17 × 35 = ____
2. 32 × 89 = ____
3. 43 × 26 = ____

Dear Auntie, I have no time myself to do my homework, because

Big Brother is on." What would you reply, if you were Auntie, delighting in this opportunity of sharing your knowledge with an enquiring young mind? "Study the article in Wikipedia on multiplication"?  --Lambiam

13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not ever seen such a question on the desks. And neither does the template actually point questioners to relevant articles. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this – although the questioner did not mention having to watch TV. Of course the template itself does not point to relevant articles, but the Usage section of the template goes like: "{{subst:dyoh}} See further our articles on [[Relevant article 1]], [[Relevant article 2]], and [[Relevant article 3]]. ~~~~ — Before using this template on the Reference Desks, consider whether it would be a helpful response. Even when deemed appropriate, it would be helpful to link to relevant Wikipedia articles." Note that the curt untemplating responders typically do not point to any articles anyway. If there is a problem with the responses to homework questions, it is not an issue of the template, but of the responders.  --Lambiam 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Missed that question - I don't get onto the maths desk much. I didn't know that the template could be made to do that. I find it easier just to type in a wikilink directly as an answer if we have an appropriate article. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The entire point of the {{dyoh}} template is to point the questioners to relevant articles. From what I've seen here, those against the template claim that it is packed full of mean and hateful wording and provides nothing at all to help the questioner. That is as far from the truth as you can possibly get. The template is overly polite and apologetic. Proper use directs the questioner to the appropriate articles. Just go to

™

13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never suggested the template is "packed full of mean and hateful wording". I also cannot recall it being used to point questioners to useful articles. I also have seen it used many times when there is no reason to assume that a homework question is being asked. Fourthly, what the hell is wrong with helping a kid with his homework? Some kids 'don't have knowledgeable, educated parents at home to help them. If you suspect homework, do what (I hope) you would do in real life - take your time to talk through the question, and give pointers to articles, don't just slap on a template because a) there is a template, and b) "we don't do homework" (someone decided that, don't know who. don't know when, but it says it at the top of the page so it must be right!) DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Throughout this thread, those opposed to the template use phrases such as "scream" and "slapped down" when referring to the template. You don't scream at someone and slap them down without some form of mean and hateful wording. As for what I do in real life with my real students, I answer questions about homework. I do not answer the homework question. The very first question is either "Did you read...?" or "What about this do you not understand?" There are other teachers and professors who don't care and just write the answer down. I don't agree with that. --

™

14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I shall continue to

ignore the "rule" about not doing homework - largely because so many editors use it as an excuse not to help with homework. And, as I have said, I have a profound objection to the common idea of homework anyway. DuncanHill (talk

) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is actually complaining about the template. It was just

User:Kainaw

who brought the template up, it's almost never used and I didn't even know it existed.

My questions were only about the policy which exists only as a paragraph on the guidlines page.

Irrespective of the template the 'policy' is believed to be "Do your own homework, we wont help", and asking here that doesn't seem to be the case at all. But the fact that people believe it prevents people answering a question they might have otherwise, resorting to simply giving out a collection of links to often redlinked or stubs that may be relevant.

I think the goal should be to answer all questions as fully as possible. While questioners should be discouraged to ask simple (and uninteresting) homework questions, answerers shouldn't need to concern themselves with the fact. There is after all, no serious implications of answering a homework question other than being unfair to others in the class.

People will always seek help with their homework and you can tell them as often as you like that they will get more benefit doing it themselves, but this will only ever come off as condescending.

The RD staff do not need to be told not to answer homework questions like “What’s 2+5”, the reason they wouldn’t answer them is because the answer is uninteresting.

I have no real problem with template:dyoh though. Caffm8 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason not to answer homework questions with the answer is clear. The student will have less understanding of the problem if they just copy the answer. However, this does not mean we cannot answer the question. We can give pointers to useful information, we can even give hints to a stategy that might be useful. This latter approach ensures the student has to think about the problem and synthesise their own answer. In short, they will learn very little if we just give an answer. But that does not mean we have to say "do your own homework" and nothing more.

David D. (Talk)

16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As others have mentioned it is a little different in the Humanities desk. While many homework questions are obviously asked, it is very rare that an answer could or is given that could simply be "copied" and if they do, they'd get a poor mark anyway. This is an example (from looking at uses of the dyoy):

Why did the Weimar Republic turn to the Freikorps for its initial defence? Who were the men who joined these formations and what motivated them? 193.130.15.240 13:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is even an obvious homework question, but no-one is going to answer as if someone had asked "Write 1000 words on...". More often people give new and interesting insight and a collection of tangentially related references which probably aren't even on the students syllabus.

Also, these are not your students, or your children, and there is no obligation to try and teach them things they didn't ask --- like the value of doing their own homework. And if someone posts a question "why should I do my own homework?", it's probably a homework question set by a teacher who thought they didn't :) Caffm8 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So what if they are not my students? I don't understand your point, my approach of pointing people to the information without giving the answer would be useful for every question not just homework questions.

David D. (Talk)

20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your approach sounds good. But most often what I see, someone posts a question that sounds a little like a homework question, someone points out it's a homework question and points them to the "obvious" article even though it's might be an awful article or even a red link. The actual question is rarely addressed. This them stops any further discussion because everyone assumes "the homework" response has already been written.

The Reference Desk is not an appropriate

soapbox for pushing a manifesto on the benefits of doing homework. Answer the question however you want or not at all but debating a questions "homeworkyness" is completely off-topic. Caffm8 (talk

) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you take this sort of answer wrong: "I think this is homework. See

™

21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion may very well be wrong, but not pushing your opinions on the poster and keeping on topic with the question seems to be the opinion of

SOAP

.

And as an aside, I'm not sure that sort of answer in your example is helpful. The poster probably has a book sitting in front of them called "Newtons Laws" unless some teacher had set him tasks he's never studied. Caffm8 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I try to stay out of these debates, spending my days eating the sponge cake walls, drinking from the chocolate fountains, and occasionally attempting to answer a few questions here and there. But how can anybody look at [these questions] and not at least suspect that phrasing came straight from a homework assignment? Plus I think it's quite amusing that the questions were originally posted on the HomeworkHumanities Desk. Of course, I'll take a million homework questions over a single "contribution" from our friend who listens to all the worst kinds of AM radio and posts his breathless questions here. Or that guy who is torturing his poor dog with duck/duct tape and bacon. --LarryMac | Talk 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

How about this for a compromise guideline:

1. As a matter of policy, we will provide help for homework but not a direct answer.
2. Indirect answers should be limited to:
   • Links to articles where the answer may reasonably be found.

     eg "Who was king of england in 1500?" - we reply "See List of English monarchs"

   • The reply "Which specific part of the problem do you need help with?"...with appropriate followup.

     eg "If an accurate pendulum clock has it's pendulum lengthened by 10% by how much will it be wrong 24 hours later?" - we reply - "Are you having trouble finding how a pendulum's swing depends on it's length or do you need to know how pendulum clocks work?"

   • Replies that 'teach a man to fish' rather than 'giving a man a fish'.

     eg "My teacher gave me a bunch of pictures of triangles and asked me to say which kind each one is and I don't know how." - we reply - "There are right triangles, equilateral triangles, iscoscelese triangles, acute triangles, obtuse triangles and scalene triangles: A right triangle has one angle that's 90 degrees, an equilateral triangle has...." etc.

3. If the OP specifically states that this is a homework question then we will use a nicely worded template that says something like "Please do not ask homework questions" - we will not come up with our own variations on that theme. We will still provide indirect answers.
4. If the OP does not say that it's homework then we
   WP:AGF
   and we do not say or even imply "This is a homework question so we can't help" - nor do we deploy the template. However, we still avoid answering directly and stick with indirect answers.
5. We do not delete homework questions.
6. If we wish to debate whether a specific question is homework or not, or the appropriateness of various RD staff's replies, we do that here (the RD talk page) or on user talk pages.
7. We retain the warning to OP's that we do not welcome homework questions - even though that is not strictly true per this policy.

IMHO, this is a useful compromise because it avoids the problem of being 100% certain that a question is a homework matter. If we guess that it's homework and we're wrong, we do not upset or embarrass the OP - and we still provide a service (albeit not so well as for a question that's "normally" worded). We only slap wrists when someone openly admits that it's homework. If we guess it's homework and we're right - or if the OP admits that it's homework, we do not end up helping a lazy child - but a child who has genuine difficulties with their homework will be taught rather than being able to skip over the problem without learning.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- Those seem like good clear guidelines. Obviously it still requires people to make up their own minds as to if a question is homework, but that's unavoidable. And if a direct answer is given (because you think it's a general interest question rather than homework), the debate should be in the talk page, as you say. Caffm8 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I actually thought these already were the basic guidelines/way it worked. Nicely stated. Skittle (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's roughly true - my claim to novelty here is embodied in rules (3) and (4). These take out the 'judgement' aspect and avoid the problem (which I've seen far too many times) of someone asking a reasonable question that could easily not be homework and have someone tell them "We won't do your homework for you." and thereby offending a perfectly innocent person. With these two rules, we only ever tell them off if they openly admit it's homework - and when we do tell them off it's with a standard template (something like {{dyoh}} but shortened because we now KNOW that it's homework). When there is any room for doubt, we don't tell them off and each RD respondant makes up his or her own mind about how to reply. SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - As Skittle said, this was how I understood it was supposed to work - especially the "teach a man to fish" analogy. --
  ™
  00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work, Steve. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support mostly - guideline (3.) seems to be less lenient towards the person who admits that it's a homework question with the ...do not ask... part of the template. Just quibbling with the wording a bit. Good luck keeping the RDers and wannabes corralled; we all have seen the helpful but indirect reply followed with an almost defiant direct response. Thanks Steve, well thought out as usual!hydnjo talk 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree w/ hydnjo, if they state up front that a question is from their homework, then they've probably read the "How to..." section—why template 'em? Also, i don't think we really have a "warning to OP's that we do not welcome homework questions" (no. 7.), "we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand". I would even water that down some: we're happy to help with your homework, but do not welcome cut-and-paste questions or the expectation of receiving a cut-and-paste-able response.—

eric

20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Support. Gentle but firm. bibliomaniac15 20:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I am a teacher, kinda (grad student, teach undergrads) and I think this proposal is absolutely ethical. I often recognize high-school level questions and I think about all those kids with two working parents and over-scheduled underpaid teachers, what are they to do? It is frustrating to need help and have no one to turn to but a stranger on a Wiki page. And I think they *usually* ask the whole question because they don't even begin to know how to break it down, or where to begin looking for the answer, not because they want us to answer the question so they can copy it. And not at least helping someone buy pointing them in the right direction is not helping the world at all. Too often teachers and parents just tell kids to "go find out on the computer". That's creating a real lost generation knowledge wise. I know 20 year olds that don't even know about the Vietnam War. Saudade7 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good approach outlined by SteveBaker. Good reasoning added by Saudade7. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Support with the criterion that it is acceptable to tell people how to find an article or page rather then to link to it directly. E.g. if someone ask's what's A and we have an excellent article on A which you will find straight away by searching for A then there is nothing wrong with politely telling a person how they can search for A. Similarly if someone asks a question like "what was the X and Y of Z in A" and you search on google for "X and Y of Z in A" and the answer is on the first link, there is nothing wrong with politely telling a person that if you search on Google for "X and Y of Z in A" you will find the answer rather then just linking to the page. Some people mention how they found it but still link directly, there's nothing wrong with that either. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that people are giving potentially dodgy answers to this question. Could we have a little look at this here, rather than dragging what we think other people's problems are onto the desks? As far as I can see, EhJJ gave a pretty good answer, and I think answering 'what are the best ways to induce burping?' is indeed reasonable.

Treesmiler raised the point that there are actually medical conditions with these symptoms; however saying that to someone who described a symptom could be construed as medical advice *ducks rotten tomatoes*. Saying it here on the talk page, or to people who are answering, should possibly make us think twice about coaching someone who has described a condition that is giving them pain into disguising their question as a simple quest for abstract information.

So, essentially, I'm undecided. I'd have thought describing good ways to induce burping, while also advising visiting a medical doctor as per EhJJ, would have been fine. I'd have thought coaching people to disguise their questions, and suggesting that people who disagree with your interpretation of the question are 'confused', dragging the politics of the talk page onto the desks, was not okay.

Generally though, I'd have thought that if people want to hash this over it is better if they do it here. Views? Skittle (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to think that a questioner will go to the talk page to learn that they should not include personal information when asking questions about medical information? They need to be told to ask general medical information questions - not specific questions about themselves. It is not a matter of dragging out a meta-discussion. It is an answer directed at the questioner about the questioner's question. It is coaching, but not to break the rules. It is coaching to show the questioner (and anyone else reading the answers) how to obey the rules. --

™

18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but if they are describing something that is causing them pain, it is not reasonable to coach them to disguise their question to get an answer! While I would think it's okay to describe good ways to encourage burping, even in response to this question (YMMV), I don't think telling someone how to avoid people realising they're talking about something potentially medically problematic is. (And I brought it here because I didn't want any potential responses to you on the desks, as much as to get views on your answer and other responses)

I don't think they should come to the talk page to work out how to avoid making their question sound like medical advice, because I think they really were asking for medical advice. I think they were hoping someone would say 'Hey! It's nothing to worry about! Happens to me all the time!', or possibly dreading they'd say 'Uh oh, sounds like deadly illness.'. But, I didn't put anything on the desks themselves because this is my interpretation of someone-I-don't-know's motives. But to me, that's what it sounds like.

Anyway, I felt that telling someone how to make their question sound innocent in this case set a bad precedent. But, I'm interested in other takes on this. Skittle (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in other opinions as well. I'm only voicing my opinion not any accepted policy. --

™

19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To coach a questioner in how to duck the medical question guidelines accomplishes nothing. One of the concerns that the guidelines are designed to address is legal responsibility. There is a record of the questioner having asked for medical advice, and if it turns out there is a lawsuit, that record will certainly be in somebody's briefcase along with the coaching and the rephrased altered question post. The coaching only serves to underscore the desk volunteer's awareness of his or her potential culpability. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there was no suggestion that the question be rephrased. The suggestion was to remove the personal information that was related to but not necessary for understanding the question. --

™

19:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The AHD defines rephrase thus: "To phrase again, especially to state in a new, clearer, or different way." If the questioner removes two sentences, he or she will be stating in a different way, so I think "rephrase" applies in this case. But I agree it's borderline imprecise. What word would you suggest to describe what was recommended? "Alter" comes to mind. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I didn't feel "rephrase" is appropriate is because it implies that the questioner said something like "Is there some disease that is keeping me from burping?" and I told him/her to rephrase it to "What diseases could keep a person from burping?" That is not the case at all. However, people may come here and assume that is the case and base their opinion of this topic on the misconception. --

™

13:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"I wonder if this counts as a medical question. Whenever I have a stomach full of gas, I have a hard time burping it out, so it ends up being very uncomfortable and painful until it finally happens. What are best ways to stimulate burping?" was the original question. You answered "Questioner: Remove the opening sentences and just leave your question. 'What are best ways to stimulate burping?' is in no way a request for medical advice. Adding personal history confuses some people and makes it difficult for them to see the question. As with any abnormality, you should seek professional medical advice to ensure that you are healthy. Answering the question - as with babies, patting someone on the back and rubbing the center of the back in circles helps with burping."(my italics) I can't see the hair you are trying to split. I can't see how "rephrasing" is materially different from whatever you want to call what you suggested to the the questioner (what do you want to call it?). If you mean that to suggest "rephrasing" as you deny doing above would be different from what you did suggest in regard to its bearing on dodging the guidelines, please explain the difference. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that before we can discuss this in any detail, we need to cover the difference between sentences that are statements and sentences that are questions. Basically, a statement ends with a period. A question ends with a question mark. I've been repeatedly accused of telling the questioner to change the question. As you've pointed out, I told the questioner to remove the statements and leave the question exactly as it was. How can you rationalize that telling a person to leave the question unaltered is a request to alter the question? --

™

17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "question", as I have been using the term, consists of all the words the "questioner" wrote no matter what the punctuation. Are you saying that if he/she had used semicolons to string the clauses together we wouldn't be having this conversation? I don't know what else to call what I call the "question", but that's what was "rephrased" or "altered". If you have a alternative term in mind for what I have been calling the "question", please say what it is, and please answer the other two questions I've posed: What word do you want to use instead of "rephrasing", and how is what you suggested materially different from that? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire "post" consisted of a "statement" about personal information and a "question". I did not ask the user to alter, adapt, adjust, amend, change, convert, doctor, fine tune, metamorphose, correct, modify, mutate, phony up, reconstruct, refashion, reform, rephrase, reshape, revamp, revise, or transform the question in any way. I told the user that he or she should post the question by itself and not with the personal statements. So, to answer your other two questions: What is the word for telling a user to not alter the question in any way whatsoever instead of "rephrasing"? Well, there are many: "keep", "let stand", "do not alter", "repeat verbatim"... How is that materially different from rephrasing? When you rephrase, you make a change. I told the user that he or she should not change the question. I believe that is the exact opposite, which is rather different. --

™

22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed two words in my post above from December 7. I hope that it now says what we both want it to. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's better. I still disagree that coaching/teaching/training people to ask medical questions in a non-personal way is a bad thing. People need access to medical information so they can make educated decisions about their health care. Saying "Go see a doctor" is only half the solution. It should be "Go see a doctor and see these links with information based on legitimate research for further information on your problem." Just walking to my office today, I passed up a poster describing the risk factors for heart disease, a poster describing the differences between cold and flu symptoms, a pamphlet box with information on colon cancer, high cholesterol, and weight control options, and the waiting room was playing a video describing how various hypertension medications work in the body. This is all medical information that is banned from the reference desk for anyone who implies that they my possibly have personal use for the information. Somehow, "assume good faith" was abandoned and it is now assumed that everyone is purposely trying to bend the rules and use the reference desk as a replacement for a doctor as opposed to getting further information to validate what they were told by their doctor. --

™

13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that people need to inform themselves about their health problems. But I can't agree that the reference desk can be used for that. There are many other considerations besides the welfare of the OP (what the hell does that stand for?) that have been discussed to death already, but if you want to talk particulars with me here and now, I'm fine with that and let's do (except let's start a new thread; that right side is crowding my elbow).

The reference desk is not really part of Wikipedia. It's not a wiki, for one thing; we can't edit whatever we like, and the material disappears into archives. When we volunteer for the desk, we become agents of the organization, representatives of the company, and we give up certain freedoms as such. We have to listen to the experts who tell us how to keep ourselves and Wikipedia out of trouble. It's an unpleasant reality, but the restrictions are part of what makes us better than Yahoo answers, for instance.

When you say that "'assume good faith' was abandoned and it is now assumed that everyone is purposely trying to bend the rules", you yourself are not assuming good faith on the part of the voluteers who may well be doing nothing more than obeying the rules. I know that's a little lawyerly, but it's true. Anyway, I can't see how it's an issue of good faith, and, even if it was, I can't see how the assumption of good faith has to apply vis-a-vis OPs. I can assume all the good faith in the world, but I can't answer a question that is soliciting advice that should be provided by a medical professional. And to assume good faith on the part of every OP would be naive. Some, at least, come from outside Wikipedia and are not subject to the review and scrutiny that balance the editing freedoms we cherish. So, again, the desk is not a wiki. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved my concern to

™

15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, there are two kinds of medical question and the touchstone to tell which is which is to ask yourself: "Are they asking about people in general without going into specific symptoms - or are they asking about a specific person (perhaps themselves) or a specific set of symptoms?". If it's the former, then it's a biology question - if it's the latter it's a medical question. We simply cannot allow ourselves to diagnose a condition from a set of symptoms...even if it's a general population question. So:

1. Is chest pain a common symptom of heart attacks? -- OK to answer.
2. I have chest pain - am I getting a heart attack? -- Definitely not OK: "Don't ask this kind of question here. See a doctor immediately".
3. Hypothetically, if someone had chest pain, would that indicate that they are getting a heart attack? -- Not OK.
4. Are people in general who have chest pains getting heart attacks? -- Not OK.

I hope we all know by now that (1) and (2) are well established - we don't all agree with it - but I hope that by now we all understand that this is the policy and it's been debated enough times that it's not likely to change. But (3) and (4) are (I think) seen as contentious - or possibly even acceptable questions to answer. It's not about a specific person - but we would be diagnosing a medical condition (possibly a hypothetical or generic one - but equally possible, the OP's mother) by answering it - so I say that we must err on the side of caution - so these are emphatically NOT OK TO ANSWER.

When the symptoms seem trivial (like burping), it's tempting to simply ignore the rules and dive right in (and, yes, I've been guilty of this in the past) - but we really shouldn't do that because if we're not qualified to answer medical questions then we're not qualified know whether this is something serious or not.

If someone rewords their question simply in order to bypass the policy (or worse still, if one of us advises them on how to Wikilawyer their way around it) - then that's still no reason to bypass our policy. We mustn't diagnose symptoms - it's dangerous to our OP's and it's illegal in lots of places in the world - and for a very good reason.

This is really important - it shouldn't be debatable.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 4 is clearly answerable. The information asked for is informational, not diagnostic. In fact, all diagnoses are specific; they apply to a certain person, not people in general. I'd say #3 is also answerable. The point is, it should be answered correctly. "Yes" and "no" are not adequate answers. - Nunh-huh 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of when my comment was characterized as telling the questioner to "rephrase" the question. Removing information not required to answer the question is not "wikilawyering". It is a sign of the real problem: Personal information does not immediately make a question a request for medical advice. Here's an example: "My boyfriend has aids and we have a lot of unprotected sex. Has there been a study on exactly what the risk of getting aids through unprotected vaginal sex is?" Most people here would consider that a request for medical advice because it has some person information on it. Now, try to read the question (the first sentence is not a question): "Has there been a study on exactly what the risk of getting aids through unprotected vaginal sex is?" That is in absolutely no way a request for medical advice. It doesn't matter what comes before or after it. It is asking if a study exists, not a diagnosis or treatment for any medical condition. I don't know how it could be done, but I would like to get people to focus on this point and, hopefully, understand it. Ignore the personal information. Read the question. Does the question ask for medical advice? It is that simple. --

™

13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that asking whether a particular document exists or not is not a medical question...no matter why the person needs the information. But if the questioner had asked us what the probability of her contracting AIDS from her infected boyfriend was - then I'd be a lot more concerned since this is now a request for personal information about a specific medical condition - with a serious risk that the person will act upon what we say. Providing information about the existence of a document - or even a completely general Wikipedia article - would be less worrysome. But for sure there are grey areas here.

If you probe the boundary between the clearly unacceptable ("I have terrible chest pain. Do I have heart disease?") and clearly acceptable ("What are the symptoms of heart disease?") - then you are bound to find areas of possible dispute.

My concern in the case that started this thread is with the hybrid question: "I have terrible chest pain. What are the symptoms of heart disease?"...This is still something that should elicit a "Go see a doctor" response. It would be utterly irresponsible to ask the person to rephrase the question without the first sentence in order that we can answer it! Once we know that this is a problematic situation, it doesn't matter a damn how the question is rephrased. We had a situation a while back when the reverse happened. It was more like: "OP: What are the symptoms of heart disease?"..."Us: The symptoms are yadda, yadda, yadda."..."OK: Thankyou - I'm having these terrible chest pains"..."US: YIKES! Don't ask us - go see a doctor!"...some you win, some you lose. SteveBaker (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the response to "I have terrible chest pain. What are symptoms of heart disease?" should be "You should seek professional medical help if you feel that you have any medical condition, which terrible chest pain is indicates. If you only want symptoms of heart disease, you should ask your question without personal information about your chest pain, only the question." My point is that you still get to tell the person to see a doctor, but you give the person the chance to ask for medical information - which in this case would be answered with a few links to articles on heart disease. Others appear to think that I'm trying to get users to bend the rules. I feel that I'm trying to get them to follow the rules. Don't ask medical questions with personal medical information added to it. Just ask a simple question for the information you want without any personal information. It very well could be that the person has an appointment in a few hours and wants to read up on heart disease before the appointment. It isn't our duty to assume bad faith and consider all medical questions as a request for medical advice. Didn't we just cover this for homework questions and agree that homework questions should only be called out as homework questions when it is 100% obvious to any sane person that it is a homework question? Why do we read into medical questions and try to rationalize any way that a medical question could possibly be meant as a request for medical advice? --

™

17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I do indeed feel that you're encouraging users to bend the rules, although you presumably do not intend that. The point of our rules about medical advice is not to follow the letter of some rule - it's to prevent us from doing things that are potentially dangerous. It's actually immaterial how the OP's question is phrased - what matters is whether the OP is trying to find out what's wrong with their health by asking a bunch of random people on a website - with the intention of following their advice afterwards! If the OP happens to phrase the question in a way that makes it clear that this is what they are doing - then good!! - that means that we know what's going on and can tell them so. Encouraging them to obfuscate their questions so we can't tell anymore is DISASTEROUS - it means that we might well give them advice that could result in severe injury or death. Far from encouraging people to rephrase the question without mentioning symptoms in order that we can "legally" answer it, we should be subtly hinting that if there is any possibility that they are asking this in order to figure out if someone is at risk of a heart attack then would they please say so in order that we can tell them to go see a doctor! What you're suggesting is the complete opposite of a good idea! SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am hearing is that people should not be allowed to gather medical information in case they may use that information to make an education decision about their own life and well-being. I highly disagree with that point of view. Knowledge is power, not a liability. I find it very saddening that anyone could view it otherwise. --

™

22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are hearing is not what people are saying. What people are saying is that the rule about not giving medical advice is not about us following the letter so that nasty lawyers can't get at us, it's about following the spirit and not providing medical advice when people ask for it because we cannot possibly provide good medical advice. It just can't be done. If someone just asked 'what are good ways of encouraging burping', that would not indicate that they were asking for medical advice, so it's fine to answer. In that case, we would be providing knowledge. If someone tells us first that they personally have difficulty burping, and it's causing them pain, then asks for ways to encourage burping, it is us knowing that they are asking for medical advice (which they are. They will mostly likely act on what we tell them, since they asked, and will be less likely to seek good medical advice from a qualified person) that stops us from answering, not that the additional information is present on the screen with the answers. If they reword it, they are still seeking medical advice, but not everyone will know that.

Let's say, for example, that someone had some form of throat cancer that interfered with burping. I have no idea whether that's even possible, just a hypothetical (although we have had one person say that it can be a symptom of something serious). They ask us for information on burping more easily. If we were an actual doctor that they had seen, and they said exactly what they said to us, we would examine them in relevant ways and ask relevant questions. We would hopefully pick up on the throat cancer and deal with it. Instead, they ask us. If we just tell them ways of burping more easily, they just try those. Possibly, one of these ways actually helps them to burp more easily and they no longer worry about the symptom. But they still have the underlying problem. Even if we say 'see a medical doctor, but some ways of burping more easily are...', we have reduced the chances they will see a doctor. We may even have encouraged them to make the underlying problem worse, for all we know. So, since we know this person was asking for medical advice in that they were asking about a symptom and how to treat it, telling them how to game the system to trick other people into giving them unsafe advice is not cool.

Incidentally, people have come on the desks after seeing a doctor and asked for more information. Using the terms they gave us, we were able to find helpful articles as well as suggest questions they ask their doctor next time they see them. So your point below doesn't quite stand. Skittle (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before - you are assuming bad faith on the part of the OP. You are assuming that the OP has not seen a doctor. You as assuming that the OP has some very rare disease or medical condition that he or she is ignoring. You are assuming that the OP is using the RD solely as a cheap form of medical advice. Did anyone care to ask if the OP saw a doctor? Did anyone care to ask the OP if he or she has been diagnosed with some form of medical condition that inhibits burping? Of course not. The purpose of the witch hunt is to block medical information that is freely available from many sources, such as the AMA and the NIH.

As I stated, I find it very saddening that otherwise intelligent people that I respect in many ways simply cannot comprehend what is means to "give medical advice." Pointing someone to an article (or even pulling a quote out of the article) produced by respected areas of the medical community is not in any way "giving medical advice." It is pointing the OP in a direction to help him or her make informed decisions about his or her own well being. Every day at work, I hear doctors talking about getting information out to the public in the interest of health. Then, I come here and I hear everyone pushing to block information from the public in the interest of health. Why? Because we aren't doctors. Well, since we are not doctors, shouldn't we be doing that the doctors are telling us to do? When a person asks for medical information, point them to the information they need to understand what they've asked about so they can decide if they want to see a doctor or not. Without understanding, they certainly will not see a doctor because they will not understand what is wrong. --

™

04:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I find it saddening that you have to characterise not providing medical advice as 'assuming bad faith'. Nobody is assuming the OP is trying to do anything wrong, just that it would be irresponible for us to offer medical advice. That you can even suggest that considering the possibility of the OP unwittingly having a rare disease is 'assuming bad faith' indicates that this discussion is never going to be productive. Skittle (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have to ask. What is DISASTEROUS about telling a person that patting a baby on the back helps them burp? For that matter, what is DISASTEROUS about pointing a person to the diabetes article or the hypertension article or the hyperlipidemia article? What is DISASTEROUS about providing links to NIH articles about strokes, cancer, or AIDS awareness? All I repeatedly see is that anyone who asks for medical information that may possibly be related to their personal life in any way should be given a quick kick in the ass and sent packing to see a doctor - even if they just saw a doctor and they want to get more information. How is this point of view propagating? --

™

22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the meta-discussion about Medical Advice, please see