This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reference desk. 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.
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments14 people in discussion
Here [1] is a thread in which the OP is asking for advice in connection with what is very possibly an illegal activity, namely hiring a prostitute. How should such a question be handled? Should it be deleted on the spot? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
We should not be removing questions solely because they relate to activities which are illegal in some jurisdictions. In this case, prostitution isn't even fully illegal in Hong Kong, where the OP's IP is located. Algebraist16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Given the ability of IP users to IP-hop all over the world, you don't know that that's really where he is, nor that that's where he intends to find his prostitute. Wikipedia should not be in the business of aiding and abetting possibly illegal activity. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In some parts of the world even reading wikipedia is illegal. Should wikipedia shut down or block access from those countries, to stop the aiding and abetting possibly illegal activity? No. It's not wikipedias business to ensure citizens of whatever country are abiding to the laws of their country. And unless simply asking about escorts is illegal in Florida (wikimedia servers location), the question should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a spurious argument. If other countries choose to censor wikipedia, wikipedia can't do anything about that. That's a whole different thing from wikipedia specifically aiding and abetting violations of the law, especially for activities that are illegal within wikipedia's own jurisdiction. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedias very existence is specifically aiding and abetting violations of the law in some countries. But besides that, is asking a question about escorts actually illegal within wikipedia's own jurisdiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is not at all a spurious argument. Various things are illegal in various places. You say quite correctly that we cannot assume the OP to be in Hong Kong, but it is not me who is making that assumption (I mentioned it only as a possibly relevant aside). It is you who are assuming, on no basis whatsoever, that the OP is in a jurisdiction in which prostitution is illegal, and are further arguing that this is sufficient to remove the question. The first part of your argument is insupportable, but I also disagree with the second: we wouldn't remove questions about (for example) living as a homosexual in Iran, and we shouldn't remove questions about hiring prostitutes even if we know the OP is in a jurisdiction which happens in ban such activities. The most we should do is warn the OP that their plans may well be illegal, but in this case the OP is probably more aware of the relevant law than we are. Florida law is irrelevant unless it bans the giving advice to people in other, unidentified, countries about prostitution. Finally, any refdeskers who find such questions distasteful and do not want to help the OP are of course as free to do so as for any question; all I'm arguing is that such questions should not be removed. Algebraist16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Algebraist. I see no reason to delete this question, although it is one on which I doubt the RD will be able to provide much help. Paying for sex and accepting payment for sex are legal in most of Western Europe - see Prostitution in Europe. Personally, I would be far more concerned if the OP were asking for advice on which model of handgun they should purchase. Compared to some activities that are legal in Florida, paying for sex is pretty harmless. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there is no reason to delete questions about something illegal in some places. For that matter, there is no reason to delete questions about something illegal in almost all places. We frequently answer questions about illegal narcotics, for example. We wouldn't give advice on how to make or buy such narcotics, but we can answer factual questions about them. Similarly, the question in question is not asking for advice on how to hire a prostitute, just an answer to a factual question about prostitutes. --Tango (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, we aren't the world police. It is not required for a Brit or a German or an American to curb their activity (on the Reference Desk or anywhere else in their life) in order to avoid "aiding and abetting" violations of the local laws of, say, Myanmar or Saudi Arabia. Tempshill (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Because people could sue if you give wrong medical advice that causes them damage, but they can't sue if you tell them whether or not an escort will reject them for being ugly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide some evidence that sleeping with a prostitute is more dangerous than, to give an example currently on the desk, putting up shelves? We give advice on potentially dangerous things all the time - pretty much everything is potentially dangerous. --Tango (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to the legality issue (which we have already established is a non-issue), I was responding to the danger issue (which you apparently considered the more important, since you put it in block capitals). --Tango (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to delete. We don't presume illegality, and we certainly don't hide behind legal arguments to cover for moral outrage. If the OP had said, "I'm living in New York City. Can someone refer me to a prostitute here who accepts overweight, unkempt clients?" then we might have an issue — but even then the legal risk is assumed by the individuals posting in the thread, rather than by the Wikipedia project. (I'd be inclined to remove such a thread because it would be likely to attract spam and is probably trolling, not because of the legality.) For American readers, you don't have to go as far as Europe for a prostitute — prositution is legal in that neighbouring northern den of iniquity, Canada. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based in the USA, and prostitution is illegal everywhere in the USA except for some places in Nevada. Encouraging editors in their attempts to possibly violate the law, is not something wikipedia should be doing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, suppose that half the questions on the Computing desk are being asked by people using their computers to communicate with minors for the purpose of sex? Should we remove all computing questions? No - because we don't infer intent. The OP indicated an interest in paying for sex, that doesn't mean they intend on breaking the law in whatever place they physically are. Franamax (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If their question has to do with soliciting minors, then yes, the question should be removed. There's no intent "inferred" here, it's explicit: The guy wants help in his solicitation of a prostitute, and the wikipedians are gladly aiding and abetting. If someone asked how to treat a headache, the question would be deleted, as we might get sued for suggesting aspirin or tylenol. But the risk of untreatable VD, though? No problem! "Don't worry, be happy, use a condom," essentially dismissing the medical implications (never mind the legal). I'll remember this discussion the next time some drive-by complains about the answers I give to questions. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, there's a risk of untreatable VD anytime you have sex with someone who is not yourself. You probably have a lower risk with a decent escort than going to the local bar and picking the first one who says yes. We're not going to remove every question about sexuality because of the risk of VD. We have relatively well-defined criteria for medical questions and they work pretty well. No-one is encouraging or "giving help" to this poster and no-one is suggesting they break any laws. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Bugs, I'm not sure why you would be disappointed by the replies you've received, given the policies of Wikipedia, which include:
Wikipedia is not censored - so content that is illegal in Florida (where the servers are located) would need to be removed, but not content that is about behavior that might be illegal. Thus, you can find information about making Nuclear weapons here, among other things. Such content is not illegal, though actually performing the activities described in many articles/pages might be. Content that we find objectionable or offensive goes with this territory. This is really at the core of this discussion.
Provision of medical or legal advice is prohibited as you've pointed out, but the original question was a request for neither.
Assume good faith - you could ask whether we're discussing solicitation of a minor, but don't assume it.
There's a lot of discussion here, but this really comes down to WP guidance. You can decide not to answer a question, but if it's not prohibited, then it's probably best to ignore any content you find objectionable. -- Scray (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Wikipedia servers are in the US, and so we do have to comply with US law but I'm not aware of any evidence it's illegal to offer someone who may very well be from Hong Kong advice on whether a prostitute is going to care about their appearance and in fact I think it's quite unlikely based on my understanding of the first amendment. As in all cases, we are not qualified to evaluate legal issues and if you genuinely feel there's a legal issue for the foundation but no one else agrees, the best thing is for our lawyer to deal with it, not for unqualified random people to start speculating. (There are some cases when there's consensus there's enough of a grey area that we should just avoid the whole thing, but this clearly isn't one of those.) Otherwise, the issue of it being illegal in the US is a red herring. There is no reason why US law takes precendence over other laws on wikipedia beyond that which would get the foundation in trouble. If you are from a certain country and are concerned your involvement may be illegal, then yes you should limit your activity but that doesn't extend to other people nor do you have a right to tell other people to stop just because of legal issues for you. We shouldn't do things just to thumb our nose at the law, be it US law or the law of any other country and in fact I personally feel if a question or a discussion is a clearcut violation of policy and likely to create legal problems for some contributors then it should be curtailed (e.g. the China/communism case a few weeks back) but this is not the case here. In particular, while I agree there's no guarantee the OP is from HK it is the most likely situation given the IP is from there (the IP being from there something I pointed out before your post). Even if they aren't they may be from somewhere else where it's legal, e.g. here in NZ. And for all we know even if they are from the US they intend to travel to parts of Nevada to do it and not break any laws. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for [...] legal advice. Ask a [...] lawyer instead.
I'm not saying we should remove this section, but we should keep in mind that the reasons why we put that on top of the RD apply to this section, as well. — Sebastian17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia lawyer types have already figured out that Wikipedia does not need to be censored even if it describes illegal activity (which it does, in many ways). There is no reason to assume the Reference Desk is any different. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion
I will shortly be removing the ref desk questions "Life after Death", "DC Transformer", and "Infinity". Those questions may look relatively innocuous, but they're all posted by the usual ref desk troll, who's a banned user. It's definitely him, not just someone else who happens to be in the 79.75.* IP range; see the 19:01 and 19:07 edits here. The "Life after Death" question might be trolling for a religious argument, and the other two might be trolling for a perceived wrong answer that can be gloated over. Red Act (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Rather than tossing in the trash some hard work by those who responded to a very reasonable question, I recommend leaving DC transformer and its answers, since it does not merely "look innocuous," but is innocuous and appropriate to the page. If you don't remove it immediately, and it is a reasonable question about a scientific topic with answers another reader might find useful, just leave it be. Your removal of the Q and A's about "DC transformer" 2 days after it was posted and responded to by several ref desk regulars is a slap in the face to Dmcq, Spark, Spinningspark, Hydnjo, Nimur, and me. I take offense to the way this was handled in a belated and inappropriate way, which smacks of ownership of the Ref Desk. Consensus for each removal should have been obtained here on the talk page. Edison (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Moreover, it is giving the troll just what they wants: A lot of drama. I don't even see why people get so worked up about sockpuppets. (See also User:SebastianHelm/Sock hunt, which however doesn't completely apply since it was written with POV pushing sockpuppets in mind.) — Sebastian01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is, pulling one over on us, sneaking past the bans, and seeing his (dubious) content here is also what this particular troll wants. I honestly don't know whether we goad him more by systematically reverting every last "contribution", or by letting a few through for whatever reason. — Ummit 06:02, 3 December 2009 — continues after insertion below
The purpose of blocks and bans is not punitive or deterrent, but to stop trouble. We don't operate the kind of justice system that says X is a criminal; therefore all his acts are criminal. There's nothing wrong with the DC question or the answers it inspired, and the hypothesis that it "might be trolling for a perceived wrong answer that can be gloated over" is overstrained searching for a guilty motive that must exist and thus ipso facto prove that the innocent question is in fact a guilty one. (Cf. Alice in Wonderland: "verdict first, trial after".) Since this is a broad range block covering 256 x 256 possible IP's, it might be someone else, say at the same school or library. ¶ A recently-posted Ref Desk Talk page entry asserting that some editors want to be lords of the Ref Desk was swiftly deleted by a different editor on similar grounds. That post was more on the borderline, but while I don't want to see any more wars on this page (no assistance required, thank you very much), I'm also concerned about having an arguable opinion blocked from my view. My inclination is to restore the posts (minus anything questionable). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not at all jump to a conclusion that the DC Transformer question was posted by the ref desk troll based solely on the IP address. And I did not make a mistake about that question being posted by the ref desk troll. It was not posted by someone at the same school or library; it was him. See all the edits in the link I provided in my OP for evidence that it was really him.
I actually wish that I had done exactly what you're suggesting I was making a mistake by doing. I wish that I had erred on the side of jumping to a conclusion about the poster in this case, as it would have resulted in me deleting the question right after it was posted, instead of stepping on the toes of Edison and the other good faith editors who responded to that question.
Sure, there are about 64K IP addresses in the 79.75.* IP address range. But I'd flip that around and point out that only about 1/64K of all IP addresses are in that range. That means that about 99.9985% of all IP addresses are from somewhere else. Or to put it another way, of all the legitimate IP users that come here, only about 0.0015% of them are going to coincidentally come from that troublesome IP range. Deleting questions just because they're from the 79.75.* range and vaguely seem like they might be from the ref desk troll will almost never result in a legitimate user having their question deleted. According to an analysis by TenOfAllTrades, there hasn't been one single non-block-evading edit to the ref desk pages from the 79.75.* range in the past year.[2] So if anything, in the future I plan on leaning towards reverting from that range more quickly, not less quickly. I'd rather risk taking the heat from someone saying "but maybe that was the first ref desk post in more than a year in that IP range that wasn't from the ref desk troll", rather than risking stepping on the toes of good-faith editors who respond to his questions, or risking the other shoe dropping on questions that aren't obviously trolling until a follow-up post. Red Act (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(But in answer to another question, no, TenOfAllTrades and Red Act do not "own" the Reference Desks. We all do, and there are plenty of us who have put in arbitrarily large amounts of time and effort cleaning up after the ridiculous amounts of damage this particular little sociopath has caused. My saying that will probably goad him, too.) —Steve Summit (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To Sebastian: Yeah, sock puppets that are created in order to push a POV aren't that huge of a deal: the worst thing they do is skew the neutrality of an article. But a sock puppet created for the purpose of block evasion by a banned user, who produces clear-cut vandalism, clear-cut trolling, and clear-cut harassment is another matter. At least one clear-cut threat of violence, too: about six weeks ago, he made a threat about kicking my "fucking" head in.[3] There are good reasons he's a banned user. Red Act (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Edison, first of all, I want to say that I truly am sorry that I offended you by deleting that question. In retrospect, I probably should have included an apology in my OP above to you and the other editors, for deleting the responses that you all put a lot of work into. I really do understand what you're feeling, because I've been in a very similar situation myself. Last July, I put a lot of time into researching an answer to a question posted on the Science ref desk by the same troll, only to wind up having the question deleted. That was how I first found out about the ref desk troll. See User talk:Red Act#Restoring questions on the Ref Desk for the fallout of that situation.
Yes, the DC Transformer question itself is "a very reasonable question", and indeed I found the answers to the question interesting (I once was a EE major way back when). However, the ref desk troll has a history of asking a very reasonable question, like this very reasonable question a couple months ago about the output power of audio amplifiers,[4] just for the purpose of being able to use it days later as a platform for taunting ref desk volunteers about what he perceives to have been wrong answers.[5] It was that kind of trollery that I was attempting to prevent, by deleting the DC Transformer question. — Red Act08:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
I see what you mean. "Stump the volunteers" ("What frogless sea-level countries beginning with L have never had a queen?") when you already know the answer is tiresome enough, but taking the posture of a know-it-all schoolmaster who delights in taunting the supposed inadequacy of those who presumptuously take the trouble to help you out is rather insufferable. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(I don't think that there is such a nation. I was going to guess "Libya", but then I discovered that they had a queen as recently as 1961. I'm not sure that they're entirely frogless either.)APL (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, removing the question 2 days after it ways posted was not ideal, and in the process I wound up stepping on the toes of generous ref desk volunteers like you to a much greater extent than if I had deleted the question immediately. However, immediately after the question was posted, there was another consideration I was dealing with. See the conversation Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Deletion of my answer to a question. The DC Transformers question was posted about 11 hours after Nil Einne said "Besides, I don't think it's likely all edits from an IP range are actually going to be deleted either. Some may be deleted, some may be ignored, but particularly if they're completely innocent and the same IP never makes any posts people find 'odd' they'll likely just be left". If I had deleted the DC Transformers question immediately after it was posted, instead of waiting until I had proof that it was the ref desk troll, I would be providing evidence that could be pointed to in that conversation that would undermine Nil Einne's statement. Like you, Nil Einne is another wonderful, very valuable editor, so I didn't want to do something that would needlessly step on his toes, either. So I waited until I had actual evidence before I deleted the question.
I strongly disagree with your statement that "Consensus for each removal should have been obtained here..." before deleting the three questions. You may well have a point for the DC Transformers question, because it had been quite a while since that question was posted, by which time a lot of good faith effort had gone into replying to it. You may also have had a point about the other two questions, if they had been posted by pretty much any other user than the ref desk troll. But under the circumstances, the other two questions are really quite clear-cut. I deleted them within only 90 minutes of when they were posted, the "Life after Death" question is very clear and blatant trolling for a religious argument, and the "Infinity" question is asking for questions about cardinality that even good mathematicians can easily slip up on, so it could very well be trolling of the type that I pointed out above. In a wild act of WP:AGF, maybe the ref desk troll really did just coincidentally happen to have a burning curiosity about cardinality that he wanted answered. But the ref desk troll is officially a banned user. The banning policy says that "By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason", and "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". Waiting around for a consensus for removal for those questions would not only be against policy, but would in all likelihood wind up with good faith editors wasting time replying to those questions, while waiting for a consensus to be reached. That's just not the way things are supposed to work for edits by banned users. Red Act (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, I don't know if you are aware, but the editor being reverted is a banned user with over 500 socks, who has been trolling the refdesk for years. As such, his posts can and should be usually reverted on sight, as per established policy - ideally before others have fallen for the bait and responded to them. It is best not to feed the troll by debating this any further here. If you have any questions about this user you can email me, or User:TenOfAllTrades, who knows him even better. In the meantime, please do not restore his last talk page post. Abecedare (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to feed trolls, but, in support of Edison's specific point above, I would note this part of the established policy you so helpfully [and that's not sarcastic] cited:
If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.
I am not disputing Edison's point - it is a valid view (see the "ideally before ..." qualifier in my post). But I do object to suggstions that his talk page posts should be reinstated and addressed, and "it might be someone else" speculations, since these instances were pretty clearcut, as is established by RedAct's original post. In either case, is there anything positive gained by extending this discussion any further ? If not, lets move on to answering genuine questions on the board. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: I'll follow my own advice and won't add any more to this thread. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or through email, if you need me to address any specific concerns about my edits here. Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. to all: I'm already aware that my replies to Edison, SebastianHelm and Shakescene above combined don't do a great job of following the spirit of WP:DENY. I don't need to be told. My excuse is that it's difficult to deal with a problem effectively if you're trying too hard to avoid talking about it openly. Red Act (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it was the "BANNED EDITOR" some of whose very reasonable questions "HAVE COOTIES AND YOU ACQUIRE COOTIES TOO IF YOU ANSWER THEM!!!!!!!!!!!" It has been many decades since I was in Junior High School, so I have little fear of acquiring social "Cooties." It is inappropriate to remove a sensible and encyclopedic question to which editors in good standing have contributed answers without a consensus for that specific removal on the discussion page. Like a Real Life Reference Librarian, I judge a given question on its merits, and give my all to answering it to the best of my ability. Because of the inappropriately overbearing and authoritarian way this was handled, I will take a recess from participation in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to see you take a break, but I understand your frustration. Your outstanding contributions on RD/S will be missed during your absence, which I hope will be brief. -- Scray (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be taking a recess from Wikipedia, too. And although you and I have a quite different perspective on this particular matter, I regret that this issue is resulting in your temporary absence. I have great respect for you, and think of you as being one of the most knowledgeable and valuable contributors in the area of EE on the ref desks. Indeed, I think that the temporary loss of you as a contributor is considerably more regrettable than the temporary loss of me as a contributor. My main goal is to try to contribute to the sci ref desk in the area of physics, especially GR, but BenRG in particular is so much better than me in those areas that I don't think that my absence will matter much. In contrast, there is no one that I think of as being a clearly more valuable contributor pertaining to EE questions on the ref desk than you are (although there are a couple other very good ones). I hope you will come back soon. Red Act (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, too. I was content to stay silent once the points had been made, questions answered and explanations given, so I wanted to follow others' example of denying further recognition. Instead the troll has probably caused the turmoil he was seeking. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of known trolls ...
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
BOLDly archiving. Enough said - no need to drive this in the ground. I only meant this as a reminder, but then I got carried away discussing, which at least shows that I'm no better than the people I criticized. So let's move on to more important issues. — Sebastian06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please let's all remember that the purpose of the RD is to help OPs by answering their questions. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the chatty atmosphere here, especially so at RD/L. But I think discussions here have a tendency to go way overboard, as in this example: Someone asks the simple question "How to pronounce 'where' and 'river' in American accent?"[6]. Now, for anybody with at least some basic experience at RD/L it should be obvious that such a question doesn't come from a linguistic scholar, but very likely from someone who prefers a simple answer. It was answered right away according to the KISS principle with a one-liner with links to the relevant sister project Wiktionary. If the OP wanted more, he or she could have asked for it. Instead, without waiting for the OP, a 1414 word long discussion ensued about details that the OP never asked about. To be blunt, it seems to me the point of that discussion was not to help the OP, but to show off one's own knowledge. I understand and respect that showing off is a motivating factor for helping out here - I'm not above that myself - and it would be counterproductive to outlaw vanity here. But please let's keep things in proportion, and let's not forget RD's purpose. — Sebastian17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Showing off is a motivation here? I thought the point of the RD was to avoid doing the work we are supposed to be doing. -- kainaw™20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, I don't disagree with the change you made (so I've left it), but altering someone else's posts on a talk page is a no-no, so please don't-don't. Or at least state what you've done explicitly. Matt Deres (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think most of that thread was useful, especially to someone unfamiliar with linguistics. All that stuff about w versus wh was pretty central to the OP's question; the different pronunciations of h were slightly OT, but at least a related topic. I agree there are times that threads really get off topic and end up being more noise than signal; I just don't think this was a particularly good (or bad) example of that. Matt Deres (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we actually don't know whether the OP found it useful, because we don't have their feedback. However, I still don't see any need for that prolonged discussion; a simple link to Phonological history of wh#Wine-whine merger would have been much more helpful. Maybe that's what it boils down to: HD is a harbor for WP:OR; people just seem to enjoy reinventing the wheel, instead of pointing the OP to what they want to know. — Sebastian03:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't know whether they found it useful, but then we rarely hear back from anonymous questioners, so it's kind of moot - maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. While you're correct to say that respondents sometimes reinvent the wheel, I think it's simplistic to say that it constitutes OR except in the most superficial sense - and this kind of OR - synthesizing information to get to another point - may precisely be what's needed by the OP. No article here is perfect and we routinely get questions on topics that are very well represented in WP - just consider the number of questions relating to evolution and perpetual motion. By reinventing the wheel, the respondent may be able to get the point across in a way the questioner more easily can understand. Just as some people learn better through oral or written instruction, I'm sure some people learn better by getting the information in a less formal, more concentrated, manner. Matt Deres (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What I meant by OR were statements like "The right way to say words like 'where' and 'what' are with an aspiration", which were given repeatedly with no reference. I agree that people have different learning styles, but I don't see any indication that that discussion was done to accommodate the OP's learning style. — Sebastian02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Natural sidetracks
I don't think it's so much wanting to show off, as the fact that the question on the original enquirer's mind often naturally leads to other questions on the part of the responders' minds, and it just doesn't seem natural or efficient to open new questions about them. Perhaps more use should be made of sub-sub-headings (=== and lower) to segregate the original query from the follow-ups. And of course, pursuing the diversions—especially getting into nasty but irrelevant arguments about bias, sources and WP:Wikiquette—shouldn't frustrate the purpose of answering the original query. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Great idea about the sub-sub-headings. I'm doing this here, please feel free to revert. I agree that it's better to focus on solutions than on assuming motivation. — Sebastian04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
As soon as the Ref Desk responders go on the payroll, you can dictate in whatever detail you wish the exact form of responses. Sometimes the chance for a bit of discussion is the reward which keeps knowledgable people here. Edison (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I made it clear that I have nothing against a bit of discussion. But 1414 words are more than just a bit. I am well aware that we're all volunteers here - not only the people who add their original research to already resolved questions, but also those who refrain from doing so. Those include some knowledgeable and helpful persons, too. All I'm asking for is a bit of consideration on the part of the former for the latter, and above all, for the readers. — Sebastian00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting upset about this "THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER DON'T MODIFY IT" bullshit. Whoever added this tag should be aware that this is not an admin-controlled "official decision" page - so discussion are not over just because you said so. So stop doing it - nobody made you god-of-the-refdesks. If people want to continue discussing a topic - you are not the person to tell them that they can't. If you feel the need to cut off a discussion, you need to first obtain consensus...and you don't have it because I'm upset about it. So I'm deleting your silly tags...and fully intend to delete any more that you use under similar circumstances. SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I was initially going to let it go because I was completely fine with letting the subject drop, then thought better of it. As usual, you were a few hours ahead of me :). To sneak in a final statement and then archive it seems a particularly bad faith thing to do. Matt Deres (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Y'know Steve, it's not a big deal. If you don't think a discussion should be closed, just remove the tags. It doesn't happen a whole lot here, and if someone is doing it, please consider putting a note on their talk page. You don't really need to call bullshit on the affair when a more friendly approach would work just as well. Franamax (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
And although I don't agree with any discussion on this page being terminated, if it's to be done, then surely it would be at the sole discretion of the originator of the thread, after the discussion had played out or veered away from their original point. Sebastian made a reasonable closing point and a reasonable archiving rationale. I wouldn't proceed in that order myself and I hope it doesn't happen again, but I see no bad faith at all, rather the opposite. We're all quite passionate people here it would seem. :) Franamax (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a matter of principle. A discussion thread does not belong to the person who started it. NOBODY has an individual right to shut it off. The tag says "This discussion is closed" - not "In my humble opinion, we should end this discussion". The tag is a flat out lie - the discussion is most certainly NOT closed. Why should anyone have the ability to deny the right to speak to other people who still wish to do so? Sure, I can just remove the tags and continue the discussion - but then why bother with the tags in the first place? This stinks of someone trying to cut off the conversation by simply appearing to be "official" (in the manner that - for example - a WP:AfD resolution is made "official" and these very tags applied). Well, it's not going to work. The only places where these tags are remotely appropriate is in formal decision-making processes when a consensus has emerged and the decision is made by the community of editors. Then the tags have a purpose - but even there, they are merely a polite reminder to potential contributors that they are wasting their breath writing more on the subject because the decision is already made. But placed into an open discussion area where no decision has been made and ratified by consensus - these tags are just rude and utterly inappropriate. They imply that some kind of consensus has been arrived at - when nothing of the sort has taken place. It's not a matter of whether this particular conversation should be over or not - I don't particularly want to contribute to it either. It's a matter of principle. SteveBaker (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the Section Topic
Here is a section with huge wall of text and arguably only one actually useful reference. It doesn't matter what one claims to have experience doing, nor should their be bickering between respondents. I don't care how many trees any person has cut down, or how many hours have been logged using a chain saw, or who's got the bigger penis, which is what it seems to have come down to. Either answer the question with appropriate references, or just. don't. answer. --LarryMac | Talk19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The reference desk has always done far more than just provide references for people. Between us, the regular ref deskers have an enormous amount of personal knowledge and understanding. It would be a waste not to use that. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for medication name to treat a symptom
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What makes you say it was to no avail? Nobody asked for or gave any medical advice in that section after his reply. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Tango, "to no avail" was imprecise. It was followed by a comment that implied giving advice (responding to this question) would be perfectly fine. I think it's clear that the question was a request for medical advice, hence my removal. -- Scray (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Are the reference desks dying?
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments18 people in discussion
I haven't noticed any decrease in the number in posts, at least from what I can tell from my watchlist. If there is though, maybe it is because we are trying to have unnecessary discussion less often. —Akrabbimtalk21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"... trying to have unnecessary discussion less often". Very hard to know what you're saying, Akrabbim. Can you elucidate? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please, let's not have another round of discussion about BB's editing! BB has received a lot of flak, and his contributions at the refdesks have improved a lot, and are now mostly quite to-the-point and helpful. My impression is, however, that there is an increase in the number of questions that ask for opinion (to which many regulars happily reply with their opinions), and also an increasing tendency in factual questions being answered with unsourced statements or opinion. This is just a personal impression after reading the refdesks since 2006. I don't think giving concrete examples will move the discussion in a constructive direction. --NorwegianBluetalk22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Could it be that the latest crop of students in the September term are realizing that we really honestly don't answer homework questions? If so, we should see an uptick in activity in January... Franamax (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well - let's look at the last 5 days on the Science desk (no particular reason - but it's my favorite). The number of questions each day were: 12,11,13,17,15. Now, we look back into the archives for the same 5 days in 2008 and we find 13,12,9,12,14 - which means that we got 8 more questions this year than last. This isn't much of a scientific sample - but I think it's very typical. Looking back at December 3rd 2007, there were 12 questions - and you have to go back to December 3rd 2006 to see a significant difference - that week, we had 25 questions per day on the average - but in 2005, we were down at 15. Reading through the questions from December 3rd 2005 to 2008 - they don't seem noticably different than the typical ones we're seeing today - and I don't see any particular evidence for either better or poorer quality answers. So on the science desk at least - I think this is a case of "Things were so much better in the good old days." I also quickly looked at the numbers for the Misc desk too - and without going to the touble of counting them - it's really obvious that there has been no significant variation over the years. The only noticable drops were when we split the entertainment desk off to a separate page and dropped the popularity of the misc desk as a result.
Conclusion: There is zero solid evidence for any kind of decline over the past 5 years - you can now stop worrying.
What I think this does show is that people aren't checking the archives before posting questions - you'd expect a drop in the number of questions over the years as the body of answers grows to encompass all of the common questions...and as the body of information in Wikipedia grows to allow more questions to be answered with a simple search of the general encyclopedia. But I can see no sign of that happening...and to use regulars - that comes as zero surprise!
I suspect that the questions continue to come for the same reason there are still new books published. Many people, as a general rule, do not know how to find information in an archived data system. It does not matter how well organized or intuitive that archived data system is - many people do not know how (and are unwilling or unable to learn) how to use it. This is why the reference desk in a real library, as well as on Wikipedia, will always fulfill a useful role - matching people who know how to quickly find information with others who need help. Nimur (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right - instead of less questions, we will just be able to direct them to the articles and archives more often. —Akrabbimtalk19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact is, we don't really know how many of them search and use the archives. By definition, anyone asking a question on here generally hasn't found or hasn't tried to find their answer elsewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) If two or more questioners pose similar questions in close succession or at the same time of year in different years, is that an indication of similar homework assignments? (2) If so, then it might be possible to find those assignments online. (3) Maybe the professor is watching the Reference Desk pages. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, it's more likely that similar questions are due to things on mass-media, like news, internet memes, popular television documentaries, and quiz-shows. Millions of viewers see these various contents and then a few are inspired to ask similar-themed questions on the desks. It's plausible that school schedules could also be involved, but it seems less common and less likely. Nimur (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been here for many years, on and off, and it does seem to be less active than say six months ago, but not drastically inactive that I'd categorize it as "dying". The ref desks have been a lot slower in the past, and they generally pick up after a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
But that's simply untrue! Look back to the archives for the beginning of July. The number of questions and responses is almost exactly what it is today. It's really not hard to verify this for yourself. Why keep putting up all of this negativity when it's so easy to demonstrate that it's not true? SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm well I've not looked at the figures (and I'm not going to, I suck at math) but it certainly seems less active. Perhaps my time frame was wrong, the whole of 2009 seems less active than 2008 imo, but that's just a feeling on my part and isn't based on any facts, so it could very well be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't need any math beyond the ability to count. Count the number of questions asked today - go to the archives, pick a day 6 months ago (preferably on the same day of the week because traffic does change over the weekends) - count the number of articles. Are there vastly fewer now than then? Do this for half a dozen days just to be sure - what overall impression do you get? Go back a year - two years - four years. The impression I get from doing that is that there is no discernable difference whatever since we started archiving the ref desks. Of course, you could calculate averages and draw graphs - but that's really not necessary. Just count the number of articles...no math required. "Feelings" are all well and good - but when they conflict with the facts - the facts win! I gave you facts - and you came back with wishy-washy 'feelings'. So please stop spreading doom and gloom - the ref desks are doing just fine. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. I still feel their less active, and no figures can change that, but I accept my feelings are wrong (as I stated above). No need to belittle me by describing it as "wishy-washy 'feelings'" and I'm not trying to "spread doom and gloom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is less inducement to contribute when Steve Baker calls others contributions "ridiculous" or "f**ing stupid and totally blows off a polite request on his talk page to remove the inflammatory language, responding instead with angry repetitions. We can disagree and provide different perspectives without the inflammatory language. Edison (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I usually believe the best place to discuss such things is the appropriate user talk page. However, that's precisely what I have done over a year ago, and it seems the user has learned nothing from it. So it may be a good thing to have this brought up here. — Sebastian01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That said, I have some sympathy for Steve's reaction in the discussion here. The IP editor's statement did fly in the face of simple facts that can be counted on two hands and the toes of your feet; such statements can make me angry, too. But the IP editor admitted right away that his statement "isn't based on any facts, so it could very well be wrong". That was a retreat clearer than any I have seen from Steve. What's gained by beating a dead horse? — Sebastian03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The possible improvement would be to get Steve, who is a highly knowledgeable and very helpful Ref Desk contributor, to abandon the abusive language he sometimes directs toward other contributors. An appeal on his talk page only resulted in more of the same abuse. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the OP said. (No dead horse was beaten in this thread.) Edison (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually I kind of disagree. Reference desk is a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia in that people are in evidence discussing the answers to "users", and thinking it through as we go. So there is a degree of talking things through and disagreeing which is part of the package. Generally Steve is within WP:SPADE and having a level of aggressive disagreement certainly improves the experience for onlookers. Sure occasionally we all get frustrated with other people but I'd rather he called me completely stupid when I was being completely stupid rather than used parliamentary language. Of course I am sorry you feel offended and abused but in general I would not want him to change pitch. --BozMotalk17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No, don't think so
Just after reading this section I came across this gem. I'll always wonder how many folks just read the RD and are inspired by it all (no, I'm not soliciting donations and no, we'll never know). I'm inspired to keep those folks in mind with all of my edits. hydnjo (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Good Lord is what I think, and I'm an atheist! Some of what I write is their window to whatever. What a responsibility :) Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Humanities includes Geography questions?
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Elsewhere I was told that Humanities includes Geography questions. If so, can someone who is privileged to do the change add "Geography" to the list of topics under Humanities? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what "elsewhere" you are referring to. Have you checked our article Humanities? It doesn't seem to mention geography. If you feel that is in error, please bring it up a that article's talk page. — Sebastian03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is Dthomsen was told that he/she should ask geography questions under humanities because humanities covers geography (which is true) but is confused because WP:RD doesn't mention geography under humanities and thinks it should be added. Whether or not it should be added I don't know, this brings up the perpetual issue of how detailed we have to be Actually on further thought, while some questions are suited for the humanities desk, some would be better suited for the science desk so I don't think it would be wise to include geography in humanities. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since in many countries "geography" is the equivalent of American "geology" rather than just cartography. Definitely a science. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And some questions that might be classified as geographical customarily end up on WP:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, e.g. the shortest route from A to B, planning a trip down the Pan American Highway, or questions about air, rail and transit systems. Some questions that might otherwise go to a separate, stand-alone Geography Ref. Desk, did one exist, are now answered on WP:Reference desk/Language. But I still think it would be a good idea to add Geography in some way to the description of topics covered by "Humanities" (a title I rather dislike because I think of "humanities" as separate from the social sciences and history, instead relating to art, music, literature, philosophy, etc.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Really, just ask the question at Misc. if you don't know where to put it. That's why there's a Misc. If it ends up being something that would be better answered at Science or Humanities (which depends on what variety of "Geography" one means), we might recommend moving it. Or just ask at Humanities or Sciences and if it seems really out of place, we'll fix it. But it's not worth stressing out over or changing the front page over. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. As it happens, I think we've had more questions in the "wrong" desk lately than we usually do. I think the number of fatalities linked to this blasphemy is probably zero, but that number could of course skyrocket at any time. Matt Deres (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"Reference required" idea
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
I wanted to float the idea of implementing a Reference Desk policy that every answerer of a question here is supposed to supply at least one relevant reference, whether it's to a Wikipedia article or to an external link (or even, gasp, a book). This is supposed to be a reference desk in which we refer the questioners to fuller explanations than can be given here. This policy would improve the experience of visitors who ask questions, and, more importantly, will get regulars to stop and think twice before posting mere opinions or jokes. (I have thought about this as a policy for a while, and Baseball Bugs finally just goaded me into posting it because he has veered again into making the Reference Desk into a chat room.) I realize this policy would take a heavy toll on SteveBaker, but I trust him enough to think he can provide a link in each response to at least one of his relevant nouns. I have not thought much about the penalty for violating this proposed policy; I'll float the idea of "amputation of a random digit" as a starting point. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have this as a guideline but I disagree that penalties should be imposed for the odd breach. I usually try to give some sort of link or reference to every answer, but there has been the occassional obscure question to which I definitely know the answer from past experience but have no idea where to find a reference. Penalties should only be for persistent and deliberate breaches, and only then if the answers have elements of chat, OR or POV in them. I don't think we should be penalising anybody who gives qood quality answers, even if they don't reference them. As for penalties, amputating fingers is too extreme and will prevent the offender from becoming a reformed editor. The first response should be a friendly warning from another editor on the users talk page. If that doesn't work a thread should be opened here and a more formal warning given. Ultimately, editors could be banned from the refdesk either temporarily or permanently, but it would have to involve some pretty severe disruption taking place before I would support that. SpinningSpark12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Spinningspark (and disagree with having a new policy on this). Answering without a reference is not disruptive, and is sometimes appropriate. Similarly, a disruptive edit can contain a reference to a reliable source - making it no less disruptive. Thus, a relevant reference is neither necessary nor sufficient for a RefDesk reply to be constructive. -- Scray (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your criterion. For example, shutting down WP would satisfy your criterion but would be an unwelcome change. -- Scray (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
How in the world does this address the issue you're raising? Do you honestly think Bugs couldn't add a Wikilink to this post?[8] This won't stop anyone from making these types of posts. The only difference will be the post will be the post will have a wikilink. Big deal. Anyway, I need some legal advice about my medical problem.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll rephrase myself: If this suggestion would stop people posting idiotic comments, I'd welcome it. Otherwise, maybe something else should be considered. 87.113.128.40 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago34 comments15 people in discussion
I experienced x what ailment do I have?
and
I experienced x what is known about this effect?
are, with respect to guidlines, fundamentally different questions. One is a request for meidcal advice, the other is an anecdote followed by a request for any scholarly medical information. One is allowed by guidlines, one is not.
Just a quick reminder as occassionaly the refdeskers who wank themselves off by telling people we can't answer their questions get a bit draconian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
92.23.58.199 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that if someone simply asks "what is known about x" then that is not a request for medical advice. The more personal their question becomes, the more it becomes a request for advice. There would be no disagreements about this if there were a bright line.
It seems likely that this exchange on RD/S prompted your message, if I'm wrong about that please say so. It helps to have a specific example, and in this instance the person described some symptoms, and asked for a diagnosis/mechanism. I agree with SteveBaker's insertion of the medadvice template because (as nicely illustrated by Kainaw's criterion) a response required making the jump from symptoms to diagnosis; however, I disagree with Steve's provision of a diagnosis. His actions in this instance are quite puzzling because they are so discordant - he says it's a request for medical advice and yet he offers a guess at a diagnosis. -- Scray (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Might a hypotheticalize your medical questions guideline be good? Posters who manage to conceal their personal reasons for asking the question can successfully obtain our unprofessional medical ideas at their own risk and at no liability to wikipedia. Why not say so at the top of the ref desk? 213.122.7.102 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not about legal liability, at all. It's about good ethics. We shouldn't encourage people to find fancy ways of asking queries for medical advice. While I agree that there is some "medical advice" that we are qualified enough to give (e.g. "can you get STDs by doing X?" is pretty straightforward), for most we are not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a strange example... the only answer we can give to that is "yes", for any X. We can give links to pages discussing the relative risks of different activities, of course (we can provide reliable references for any question as long as the reference explicitly answers the question and doesn't require us to diagnose a medical condition, or whatever, before we can tell that the reference is useful). --Tango (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In that case, if the poster claims to be asking out of curiosity rather than for advice to act on, who are we to contradict the poster and deny access to knowledge? It's not up to us to protect people against their will. Words of caution should be sufficient. 213.122.38.184 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not a strange example—it can be answered pretty straightforwardly, even if the answer itself is going to be weighted in probabilities. But those probabilities are very easy to come up with, in part because the question is one that is of basic public health and not individual diagnosis. It's not the kind of question where somebody is going to answer, "oh, I did that a million times with syphilitic prostitutes and never had anything bad happen, so it must be safe, go ahead!" which is really the kind of thing we are worried about provoking. What we are really worried about happening is NOT a legal problem, but somebody saying, "I have a pain in my chest, is it a problem?" and we say, "oh no, that's just gas", and then, because of our answer, they don't go to the hospital and die the next morning from what turned out to be a heart attack. Any question that gets us into that territory should be rigorously avoided—not because it is legally dangerous but because we have an ethical responsibility. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think about borderline medical questions by comparing the benefits of getting advice here versus being told to consult a doctor.
If there's really something wrong with you and we diagnose it, you still have to see a doctor.
If there's really something wrong with you and we botch the diagnosis, you might die.
If there's nothing wrong with you and we tell you you're fine, you're reassured.
If there's nothing wrong with you and we tell you there is, you worry unnecessarily.
So, best case scenario, we ease someone's mind; worst case scenario, they die. The bottom line is that there's no great benefit to getting your advice from here and possibly a huge negative looming on the horizon; it's a shitty gamble made all the shittier because of the natural desire people have to be reassured when they're worried. If you ask ten people whether the lump on your arm could be cancer and get nine positives and one negative, it's very human to place undue weight on the lone negative because of the psychological difficulty of facing cancer. This, in spite of the fact that you have no reason not to get it checked out and an enormously good reason to get professional advice.
I agree that the basic problem is with medical advice answers rather than medical advice question, but I still support the removal of medical advice questions because the well-meaning respondents here seemingly can't help themselves. The risk of possibly offending the OP by removing their question or at least slapping a big template on it is nothing compared to the benefits of them getting advice here (such benefits, as mentioned, ranging from ill-informed reassurances to painful death). Matt Deres (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be working from the assumption that anybody who professes to desire knowledge about a medical topic really wants "advice" instead, and is either trying to cheat us or deluding themselves. This assumption would seem to imply that we should delete all our articles about medical topics, for fear of somebody wanting "advice" accidentally reading them. Is that really the Wikipedia spirit? –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The OP said "I was simply interested" and "I was simply curious" - why can't we take these statements seriously, and say that the question doesn't fall into the verboten realm of advice, since the OP asserts motivation from scientific curiosity? 213.122.60.32 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Because their curiosity is in regards to a real-life medical condition they might have. We're in no position to diagnose it and shouldn't try. Matt Deres (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You keep asserting that the OP "might have a medical condition". Why? That is certainly not something he told us in his question; on the contrary he explicit says that he "was fine". Who's doing diagnoses now? –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A physician's job is to know the human body and its functions in terms of normality (homeostasis). The four cornerstones of diagnostic medicine, each essential for understanding homeostasis, are: anatomy (the structure of the human body), physiology (how the body works), pathology (what can go wrong with the anatomy and physiology) and psychology (thought and behavior). Once the doctor knows what is normal and can measure the patient's current condition against those norms, she or he can then determine the patient's particular departure from homeostasis and the degree of departure. This is called the diagnosis.
Because the OP reported non-normal vision, and disorders of vision are the province of medicine, responding would require diagnosis. -- Scray (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A diagnosis would be about something that is wrong with the OP's body now, which is not what he was asking about. He described how his body had temporarily responded to some unusual temperature conditions, assured us that is was temporary and he is fine now, and asked -- out of curiosity and based on a tacit assumption that this is how everyone's healthy body might react to these conditions -- what the mechanism behind his observations might he. Specifically he did not ask "what is wrong with me?" or "am I sick?". If he had asked that I would agree that he asked for diagnosis. But he didn't: he asked for information about a presumably normal phenomenon that he happened to have observed firsthand.
I concede that there is a theoretical possibility that what I, and the OP, and any reasonable reader of the question, would assume to be the normal reaction of a healthy body to some unusual conditions, is in fact something a doctor would recognize as a symptom of some grievous underlying ailment. But if we want to let that remote possibility control, then I cannot see that how we could distribute any physiological knowledge to anybody (at least, without being inconsistent and arbitrary).
When there is no reason for an asker to consider his experience a potential indicator of medical trouble, it is counterproductive for us to condemn his question based on that remote possibility. The alternative to getting an answer to his question here is to shrug and forget the matter, not to formally consult a doctor for the sake of his idle curiosity. Which helps nobody. –Henning Makholm (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be working from the assumption that a strawman argument is more meaningful than a proper dialogue. I didn't say that we couldn't or shouldn't provide information about anything related to medicine, I simply stated that being overly cautious results in really not much loss at all whereas providing unwarranted diagnoses could result in serious harm, even death. I would also like to point out that I was only talking in generalities rather than specifics. If want to talk specifics, then yes, I think they were requesting the diagnosis of a condition. They experienced strange visual effects (condition) and requested an explanation (diagnosis). Asking about how the eye works is an anatomy question; asking what treatments are routinely used for astigmatism is a medical question; asking us "why my vision was affected like that" is a request for a diagnosis and hence medical advice. Do I think they're suffering from a serious medical problem? What you need to understand is that what I (or you) think is completely irrelevant; we're not qualified to reply. Matt Deres (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You claim you didn't say we shouldn't provide information about anything related to medicine. Yet your only reason for denying an answer to the OP is that he asked about information about something related to medicine. The notion that he was "requesting the diagnosis of a condition" is entirely in your head. He simply described a curious phenomenon he had experienced, and asked for more information to satisfy his own curiosity. It is way overbroad in considering all questions that are based in self-experienced phenomena as "requests for diagnosis". That amounts to denying that it is possible simply to be curious about how the human body works without wanting a white-coated "diagnosis" about it. –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In the very post you just replied to, I spelled out in simple terms where the line has been drawn. We can answer all sorts of questions about anatomy and physiology and diseases and ailments and a whole bunch else, but we can't answer the question, "What's wrong with me?" We're not allowed; it's in the guidelines. To be honest, I think a lot of the medical advice questions we get here are probably not due to serious medical ailments. If the OPs choose to not see anyone about what's concerning them, statistics say that virtually all of them will get better anyway. What I'm trying to get across here is that I'm not trying medicalize anything or promoting "white-coated" diagnoses; I don't care whether the OP sees a doctor, a voodoo priest, or asks his uncle Gus to rub snake oil into his scalp. What he does outside of the RefDesk isn't my concern, though I will continue to promote the use of medical doctors because I've heard they're good people to see when you're sick. The OP experienced a problem. A transitory one, but a problem. He wants us to tell him what caused it. What definition of diagnosis do you work from that doesn't include some form of "determining the cause of a problem"? Matt Deres (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The poster did NOT ask "What's wrong with me?" He did not describe anything that he considered a "problem". He had a non-problematic experience which made him curious. The fact that the experience was transitory does not make it a "problem". He was or is not sick (as far as we know anything about) and therefore has no reason to see a doctor. I agree that "determining the cause of a problem" probably involves diagnosis, but this is irrelevant because there was no problem here.
What I'm objecting to is not your rule of not telling people what is wrong with them, but your mischaracterization of an honestly curious question as a request to be told that something is wrong with him. –Henning Makholm (talk)
I added a link to nystagmus, which is a symptomsign that results in symptoms that resemble what the OP described. I offered no attempt at diagnosis. If someone feels that even this is over the line, feel free to revert. --NorwegianBluetalk23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nystagmus is a sign, not a symptom, and thus it's something that a health-care provider would record when examining a patient. I'm really puzzled by your removal of Steve's link to orthostasis followed by your addition of nystagmus. Since you said you wouldn't mind if someone removed, I will. Going from someone's description of their symptoms to (meaningful) signs is well down the road toward diagnosis - it's also one of the most error-prone steps and in this case I also think it's likely that you got it wrong. -- Scray (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being so terse. My point was that, when bathing, one can easily introduce water into one auditory channel, and not the other. The OP may therefore inadvertently have performed a caloric reflex test on himself. The ampullae of the three semicircular canals are located close to the middle ear, and therefore subject to heating or cooling by water in the auditory channel. Heated endolymph will rise, cooled endolymph will sink. If the position of the head is standardised (subject supine with head at 30 degrees elevation), as when doing the caloric reflex test, only the lateral semicircular canal will be affected, and horizontal nystagmus will result. The subject (if conscious) may then experience a sensation of "the world spinning". If the position of the head is different, and in addition the temperatures as extreme as in the "experiment" reported by the OP, I would assume that the other canals could be affected, resulting in nystagmus in other directions, and, for example, by the feeling that everything was spinning upwards. --NorwegianBluetalk12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah guys, I am definitely getting deja vu with this one. Can't you write it up as an essay and then just link to it every time you want to run the debate again. SpinningSpark02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What we need is a template that tells new users "You are not the first person to be for/against the medical advice policy. You are not the first person to argue for/against the medical advice policy. Before attempting to start an argument, please see (list 100-200 of the most recent debates)." -- kainaw™03:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I support the medical advice policy, but am a bit ambivalent on whether this question is a request for medical advice (and hence the inconsistency in my edits, that Scray pointed out). There has been no edit warring, just a discussion about where to draw the line. Curiosity about normal, physiological phenomena will often result from personal experiences, and it's a pity we can't answer such queries. --NorwegianBluetalk09:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the above discussion has been constructive and civil. I also find physiology fascinating, and like to discuss it. The challenge is how to decide what is "normal physiology" and what is a marker of disease. Making that decision in responding to RD/S would be diagnosis (as I described above). If someone asks in the abstract about physiology, I see no problem in responding. -- Scray (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Presumably anybody who said "this is not a medical condition" could then proceed to answer the question (continuing with "and this is not a diagnosis"), they same as we are currently doing (implicitly) with the "snoring while awake" question (and, implicitly, with all other questions). When I first saw that one I thought "woah, maybe you've got a brain tumour or Alzheimer's or some form of schizophrenia and are having short term amnesia or delusions", and if a bunch of us were as silly as me we might have slapped "no medical advice" on it and all agreed with one another. Felis cheshiri (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you arguing that without knowing an answer to the question we're not allowed to think the question is not "medical"? If so, I completely disagree. –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No. This is getting hard to parse ...
Imagine we all agreed where the boundaries between medical and non-medical belong.
Will those questions which get answered be questions about things we agree are non-medical?
Not necessarily, because we could also disagree about what the thing is that the poster is describing.
That is to say, we could agree that thing A is medical and thing B isn't, but disagree about which of the things is the subject of the post in question. Those who think the poster is describing thing B cannot be giving a diagnosis (or prognosis, or treatment advice), because from their point of view they are answering a non-medical question, the same as if it was a question about rocket engines or something. Therefore they must be free to give an answer. Felis cheshiri (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons the debate keeps happening over and over again is that, over time, the application of the policy keeps getting stricter. The impression an outsider would get is that we are more interested in applying this rule, and in twisting any vaguely medical-sounding question into a "request for diagnosis" so that we can disallow it under this rule, than we are in actually answering people's questions. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Separate archive search boxes
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It has been mentioned here that the reference desk archives are not being used as much as they could be. I have had the experience of using the one search box provided, and I had to sift through many links in other reference desk categories to find links to archived discussions in the language category. Therefore, I propose that the comprehensive archive search box be retained on each subsidiary page, but that each subsidiary desk also have its own specific archive search box. The specific one can be placed immediately below the general one.
Makes sense to me. It's a shame it's not possible to bookmark particular comments (before they reach the archives), otherwise I'd bookmark this post for convenience. (Perhaps the top page could be made to count as a kind of archive from its inception, with its archive number already attached, allowing permanent links to comments on it?) Felis cheshiri (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, because so many questions can land on one of several desks. I only watch the Miscellaneous, Humanities and Language ref desks, but all kinds of questions that end up on one of those desks could easily have appeared on one or both of the others. So a query that only searches one desk might miss the very answer lurking somewhere else. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
And looking at the desks again, perhaps you could use just two extra search boxes, since the topics bifurcate pretty cleanly (except for miscellaneous and some geography), although you'd need more sophisticated linkage:
"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool..."
Latest comment: 14 years ago89 comments23 people in discussion
...than to sludge the Ref Desks with gratuitous me-too-cum-last-word platitutes, tangential trivia, and wanna-be witticisms à la Baseball Bugs' usual and especially the latest. This one shows zero awareness, let alone respect, for human brutality's innumerable victims with nothing to hide and plenty to fear. I consider BB's behavior tediously self-centered and an abuse and detriment to the posting/response RD interactions. This is my statement in protest and a call for restraint where the exercise of good judgment (and good taste) is evidently lacking. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both the general and specific complaint. I made a similar complaint above, but it wasn't well received. I wrote it generally, because I didn't want to pick on a particular editor, so I only criticized “statements like "The right way [...]", which were given repeatedly with no reference.” But guess who had made those statements? I had thought of replying to the latest senseless platitude with a reference to “First they came...”, but that might have been again too subtle to sink in. So, despite my preference for nonviolent communication, I think it may be a good thing that this has been brought openly on the table. — Sebastian09:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to Bugs, he was just commenting on another editor's equally vague generality that also didn't answer the question. Of course the question is hardly one we're equipped to answer, since the Reference Desk hasn't yet acquired its own counter-intelligence service (to the best of my knowledge and belief, or as much of it as I'm allowed to divulge...) How on earth could we either confirm or deny that Howard Schmidt was appointed because of his asserted eavesdropping prowess? It looks like more of a question to be hashed over at a blog about politics, Palestine or spying. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ¶ And, without wanting to sink any deeper into the substance of the question, I think that Bugs' comment could easily be taken either way, for example, that there'd be nothing to eavesdrop on if Islamic culture had nothing to hide. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Having found out who Howard Schmidt is (I thought he'd been appointed an ambassador), he was obviously appointed Cyber-Security Coordinator because of his technical prowess (at least I very much hope so). But we're just as unequipped to answer whether "the real motive behind the appointment was to enhance computer eaves dropping capability on Islamic culture." And the poster's title for his or her question is certainly strange if not telling: WP:Reference desk/Humanities#Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt—— Shakescene (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
These so-called subtleties seem to me a distortion of the RDs' information-based purpose, which I understand as a directive. Functionally I find them a harmful sort of clutter, especially for contributors like myself whose WP time is necessarily limited (e.g. in using the research library at my workplace, a world-class Holocaust archives). When a query is impressionistic or speculative in essence, the RD Regulars would suggest the OP rephrase or seek elsewhere rather than engage on the issue. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Me, I was dismayed by this question, demonstrating (a) a questioner's perplexity at one of Bug's "jokes", and (b) Bugs's unrepentance, as usual. In my book, if someone has to ask you to explain a joke, it was misplaced. And if you say "No one forces you to read what I have written", it demonstrates that you're posting for your own benefit, not your reader's. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your last sentence - it can mean you are writing for a subset of your potential readers. The difference is that there may be some readers that does appreciate what you say. The question we need to answer is: does anyone (other than Bugs) actually get anything out of Bugs' comments? I suspect not. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Me, too. And while I agree with what you say, I'm going to stand by my last sentence.
If you say something intended for a subset of the audience, and someone not in that subset objects or misunderstands, you will probably say something like "I'm sorry, what I meant was...". But if you get confrontational instead of apologetic, if you say "No one forces you to read what I have written", then I say again, it demonstrates that you care more about yourself than your audience. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"No one forces you to read what I have written" can be a reasonable response to "You shouldn't have written that." It is not a reasonable response to someone simply not understanding you. In this case, Bugs said it in response to a general statement about people not finding his jokes funny, rather than directly to the user that had not understood him, so I think it falls into the former category. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion belongs here. If an editor has a problem with Bugs' behaviour on Wikipedia then they should raise these concerns in the first instance on Bugs' talk page (as Deborahjay has already done). If that does not produce a satisfactory result then there are other appropriate places to escalate the issue. Protesting about Bugs' posts on this talk page will not achieve anything. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This isn't the first instance, so the user's talk page is not the right place. The only other places I can think of are for getting admin intervention, and I see nobody calling for Bugs to be blocked. This is a discussion about whether certain conduct is acceptable on the ref desk, so the ref desk talk page seems like the perfect place. If we reach a consensus that is isn't acceptable (which seems to be what is happening, but I wouldn't be comfortable calling this a consensus yet) then we can inform Bugs of that. If Bugs doesn't change his ways, we can then look into other avenues of dispute resolution, but hopefully that won't be necessary. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Between the discussion here and the many past discussions here on the same subject, I have a hard time seeing how there isn't a consensus. As for RFC, we don't need acronyms for the sake of acronyms. The relevant comments are occurring, and are occurring with the relevant subset of users. What about the RFC process are we missing apart from location and formatting? — Lomn15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What is missing is community wide input. A lot of editors watch and comment on RFC's. This talk page is a Wikipedia backwater. Protesting here and establishing some notional consensus of folks who read this page is a waste of time and won't achieve any more than those "many past discussions" did. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do we want community wide input? This is an issue that only affects the ref desks and there seems to be a consensus of the interested parties (excluding Bugs). RFC is for issues that either affect the larger community or where the relevant group hasn't been able to reach a consensus. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I assumed you all wanted to take some practical steps towards some sort of resolution here. If you just want to grumble about how cross Bugs makes you feel, then I guess here is as good a place as any. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think achieving a consensus of ref desk regulars about what is acceptable conduct on the ref desk and then asking Bugs to comply with it is a very practical step towards resolution. I don't think the drama of an RFC would be at all productive - RFC's rarely are. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is the right venue. It would only be necessary to go to a venue outside the ref desk if Bugs will not accept that consensus is against him here. SpinningSpark16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I like Baseball Bug's input. I think he injects a note of reality into what gets kind of surreal sometimes, with reference desk regulars trying to seriously answer questions that I suspect are not being asked in all seriousness. I think what is called for are some appropriate followup questions. Not to turn this into a chat room, but to establish some focus.
This called for discussion. There was no way to provide an answer. Until a proper groundwork is established it is impossible to provide a useful response. I think Baseball Bug's input served to make it obvious that the current state of inquiry at that particular question was futile and unlikely to result in anything productive and was an example of the reference desk being put to poor use. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Bugs comment there does that at all. I agree the question was a call for discussion and there wasn't much we could do with it, so Bugs didn't really do any harm, but he didn't help. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It may have been absurd, but whether or not it was absurdist depends on the intent of the writer. I see no evidence that it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the question and if that was the intent then I don't think it did a good job. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly is is but my interpretation that finds Baseball Bugs' statement here to be absurdist. But I didn't have in mind that he was necessarily commenting on the question itself as posed by the OP, but rather on the predictable way in which the reference desk allows itself to be drawn down a path of entanglement in ultimately unanswerable questions. I think Jayron32's comment in response to the OP was a good one. And I also think Baseball Bugs' comment was a good one. The worst sort of response to this sort of question is the attempt to objectively answer it. The question is carefully constructed to elicit an emotion charged response. Both of the above editors deflected the question by addressing only tangentially related issues. The only criticism I have of the techniques employed by Jayron32 and Baseball Bugs is that they failed to pose a question of clarification for the OP. I think a question requesting the source of the information presented by the OP would have been a great rejoinder. In the OP's question is stated that he "heard" the "characterization" that he goes on to describe. In my opinion the best response would have been to stop it right there and ask where that was "heard." Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to proceed formally, the reason you need RfC is because the Ref Desks do not exist for the Ref Desk regulars. Community-wide participation is needed because the views of people who don't routinely patrol these pages is actually more relevant than the views of we who have them watchlisted.
That said, I must add that this is a tremendously tricky area, because for the most part, the comments are not truly disruptive. Some jokes are not understood ("Ribbit"), or poorly received by us, but I'm not sure that's real disruption.
I myself am <ahem> occasionally partial to a jokey response on these pages and I enjoy some of the humour I've seen from others. I'd personally hate for us to go down the 'serious answers only' route that was posited about 3 years ago (from memory), as it briefly sapped the life and soul from these pages.
What seems to irritate the regulars is a) the frequency and b) a perceived absence of humour from BB's comments. However, both of these things are highly subjective. How many jokes a day or week is inappropriate? How funny is a joke? Are three funny jokes and two unfunny better or worse than six funny ones? Or two hilarious ones and two clunkers? Or one impenetrable one? And who decides if they're unfunny, passable, hilarious or sidesplitting? The answers are difficult to find and this is perhaps why, if people wish to formalise things, they'll hit trouble even if they do use RfC.
I'd suggest Deborahjay's option of asking BB to restrain himself is not only the appropriate one, but the one most likely to succeed. It may be it's been tried before and failed, but asking nicely is always the best way, especially when the person is reasonable. I'll add my voice on BB's talk page now. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation has gone on long enough and Bugs has been asked, told, begged, and suggested to change his behaviour nicely, tersely, flippantly, and obliquely. We've done those appropriate steps again and again because nobody wants to start something on RFC. Given his past inability to control himself, it seems likely to me (and perhaps others) that once the formal stuff gets started, it will be a short but unpleasant ride to getting Bugs blocked. That's not something I would wish on any user, particularly one who can and does post well-intentioned and useful replies. At this point however, I think that the people who feel strongly about this should stop griping here (which serves to purpose) and either escalate this to RFC or learn to live with it. Personally, I can live with it, but I don't follow the RD as closely as many do (or as I used to). Matt Deres (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets compare the situation with a more common one of a disagreement over whether a certain comment should be included in an article. We only resort to RFCs if a consensus cannot be reached on the article talk page. I don't see why the ref desk should be any different. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100%, except that consensus has already been reached - we've hashed this out on this very page before - and Bugs continues to operate in breach of that consensus. RFC could serve the purpose of allowing uninvolved editors to comment on whether our guidelines are appropriate and sufficiently clear, whether BB is in violation of said guidelines, and what deterrent measures (if any) should be pursued as a next step. Ipso facto, it may be that an RFC would determine that BB is operating according to wider community standards and that it's we that need to adjust. Someone up-thread referred to RD as a backwater; I tend to agree and think disinterested parties might provide new thoughts on the matter. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to BB "appealing" to RFC or elsewhere if he feels our standards are wrong and thinks the wider community would agree with him, but I don't see any reason for us to go to RFC if we have a consensus here. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If Baseball Bugs was an ip editor he would have been blocked a long time ago. I haven't looked though his contributions to articles or other areas of Wikipedia, but his edits on the Reference Desk are more detrimental than good. The problem is, he means well and there's no deliberate attempt on his part to cause trouble; it just happens. I agree that a (forced) absence from the Ref Desks would be better solution than blocking him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Conclusion
We seem to have reached a consensus here, so I'm going to try and summarise what it is so we can move on. This is not a straw poll so there is no need to express your support for it, just express your opposition if you are opposed (since that would mean I was wrong about there being a consensus). If there are no objections after a couple of days then I will copy it to Baseball Bugs' talk page. If there is no change in behaviour, we can have another discussion about what to do about it. I intend to inform Bugs that:
In a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk the Reference Desk regulars have reached a consensus that your [BB's] contributions have largely had a negative impact on the desks. We recognise that you do make some constructive contributions on the Reference Desks and elsewhere and encourage you to continue doing so. We do, however, ask that you significantly reduce the amount of jokes you post to the desks. Some humour is perfectly acceptable but your jokes are too many in number and often too difficult to understand (meaning people don't find them funny). As long as you comply with this request then you are most welcome on the desks, but we will not allow things to continue as they are. Thank you.
I disagree. I think that some of Baseball Bugs' input serves to deflate the sense of self-importance some reference desk regulars are possessed of. That is a good thing. I respect everyone at the reference desks. I really do. I'm not just saying that. I think the ingredient which is Baseball Bugs' input is a necessary and healthful one. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with that, but I'd add that some of that input serves to increase the sense of hostility of the desks. He often phrases things in a way that seems like he's trying to goad a reaction out of people, and the sarcastic comments are entirely unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
As a non-participant in the preceding discussion, but an interested observer, I'm not at all sure this is appropriate. Is this just about the frequency of BB's jokes or the fact that some people don't understand his humour? DeborahJay didn't use the word here, but in her approach to BB directly, she said his contribution was "offensive". To gloss over that here seems to miss the point entirely. To ask someone to only make jokes that others find funny, and then only as many as does not exceed some undefined limit, is bureacracy at its most absurd. Just exactly what is the measure of how these requirements are to be met? Is there to be a poll after each BB joke to see whether they pass the "funny" test? I don't like the authoritarian tone of "We will not allow things to continue as they are". -- -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that Baseball's positive contributions are outweighed by his asides. Like many of us (including me), he can sometimes come up with a flip or general response where something more detailed or specialized is needed, and like many (rarely including me) he sometimes has difficulty resisting the temptation to put his irritation at a dumb question on the Ref. Desk page; but there are many questions where his knowledge of a wide range of topics (from language to politics to pop culture to religion to baseball) contributes substantially to the overall collective answer. Sometimes he does overdo it, and crack jokes that aren't relevant to anything, but this discussion is way overblown.
What all editors have to realize is the wide diversity of both questioners and responders. Some come with a great deal of seriousness and treat the Reference Desk as if it were a branch of the Britannica or the OED; their time is short and their patience naturally limited. Others come from idle curiosity (witness the fanciful or quiz-type stump-the-editors questions we get). And most of us fall somewhere in between. We spend a lot of time and care on our answers, and sometimes go way out of our way to do research in an unfamiliar field, but we're also here (rather than editing articles in our fields of specialty) because we still have that childhood curiosity about things in general and a desire to share our knowledge; there's nothing wrong in having a little fun in the process. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with any action to force BB off the desks. I find his remarks largely unuseful, unfunny, tedious, and childish, but there are plenty of unuseful, unfunny, tedious, and childish people in the world we must all endure simply because there's no way to formulate a law for their imprisonment/execution without also catching up a lot of good people. We can not come up with a rule that will both prevent Bugs' behavior and still leave the RefDesks a decent place, so we must endure it. --Sean21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you say the same if he was an anon ip user? Because I've seen ips blocked for less. Anyway, as I see it, the problem here isn't his jokes or unhelpful remarks themselves, it's his utter disregard for his fellow ref deskers who have asked him many, many times, very politely, to at least tone down on this stuff. He has totally ignored all of it, argued over it and continues the same behavior that has wasted many editors time discussing in these talk page threads. That strikes me as disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with Tango's suggested statement, except for the sentence "As long as you comply with this request then you are most welcome on the desks, but we will not allow things to continue as they are". I don't think that's the way to go, because I see no reasonable way to enforce the threat. In addition, I feel there are more problems with BB's editing than just the jokes. There was a similar discussion a while ago, and my impression was that the signal-to-noise ratio in BB's contributions improved a lot. Regretfully, the S/N ratio is now, in my opinion, lower than ever. Here is a snapshot of a thread that went horribly wrong. A question is asked about lethal injection, and the OP makes it clear that s/he thinks it is a cruel punishment. Two factual answers are given. Then the thread devolves into a debate, with statements from BB such as "and we could always go back to hanging", along with unsourced suppositions. Finally, it turns into a discussion, on the RD itself, about BB's editing. I hereby apologise for my contribution to that part of the thread, and thank User:HalfShadow for removing the junk. The thread illustrates that this is not only about BB's making jokes, it is about his answering questions with statements that are based on guesswork, his quarrelsome editing pattern, and his desire to always have the last word.
I believe our only option is to somehow get the message through to BB via his talk page. Dweller made a superb attempt. I didn't find BB's response encouraging. Deborahjay's complaint got an interesting response, "Your complaint has been noted and logged.". Since BB apparently logs complaints, I suggest that, whenever BB makes an inappropriate remark on the RD, the first editor who gets sufficiently annoyed replies with "I have notified BB on this talk page that I ..." (consider the above remark offensive/completely off topic/an invitation to debate/tasteless etc), along with a wikilink to the relevant section on User_talk:Baseball_Bugs, to make it easy for others to either second the comment or argue that they consider the statement constructive. That strategy, would keep the discussion there, where it belongs, and reduce the noise on the RD. Unfunny jokes on the RD that are not disruptive, should be ignored, IMO. --NorwegianBluetalk23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
NB, your first paragraph, last sentence sums it up well. Lame attempts at humour are not horrible per se. The concern is when the supposedly professional milieu of the desks gets overwhelmed by frivolity and non-helpful comments. Maybe it's a backwater (RD/S and RD/M get an awful lot of edits though) - but for many people in the world at large the desks are where they interact directly with "we, the editors". If people read these pages and see well thought-out and referenced answers interspersed with a few (hopefully double-indented and <small>) funny comments and kibitzing, they will know that we are both good at what we do and human. If they come to these pages and see strings of non-sequiturs and jokes about the poster or the inane question itself, they may either 1) not see us as a credible resource or 2) decide that maybe they'll participate in the sport. That is disruptive to the very existence of the desks. They don't exist for idle amusement, not as a means to prove "you can't stop me".
A concern which I haven't seen raised yet (likely because most of you are too sane to read the page) is that this same sort of thing happened at the WP:ANI noticeboard. Bugs was criticized for his habit of popping up everywhere with comments ranging from lame humour to apparent baiting, as I recall I went after him once myself for making fun of the way an OP framed a complaint. This culminated in some rather pointed and ominous "stop or else"-type comments and was featured heavily in Bug's failed RFA. That RFA contains Bugs saying "There are plenty of other places to work here" and it appears that not long after that BB took an interest in the refdesks.[9] I'm troubled by this apparent continuation of borderline-disruptive behaviour and by Bugs apparent complete refusal to contemplate the possibility that anything is wrong at all.
The refdesks have to be run for the purpose of satisfying the mission if the desks, not for the satisfaction of any one editor. We are not an amusement park. Procedurally, I'm fine with Tango's proposed note to Bugs, although minus the "threat" bit. Beyond that, if any restrictions might be contemplated, I think a user RFC would definitely be required. It would be messy, but won't lack for certifiers. I would far rather see Bugs pull back a little, he can be very knowledgable and helpful, he has a great point-of-view and often decent sense of humour. But not always. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There are, of course, other options besides RFC's and blocks. Another is arbitration.
If I were an arbitrator overseeing this dispute, I would suggest this resolution:
Recognizing that Bug's editing pattern on the Reference Desks has been disruptive [and there's really no argument about this, as the talk page record shows] and that change is needed, Bugs is directed that for a period of one month, he is to post only factual answers to questions on the Reference Desks. No jokes, no flip remarks, no attempts to spark debate, no participation in debates.
If I was an arbitrator, I would be looking at the "Previous steps to resolve the dispute" section and asking why it's not filled in. Continuous wanking on this page will not be sufficient IMO. Bugs is currently being engaged at his talk page. The next step is RFC/U, like it or not, where more than the usual suspects can have a look; then AN/I if the RFC result is clear and things don't get resolved. This is community-resolvable and the community might just say we have to live with it. Arbcom is the absolute last step (and at the rate they resign, only the janitor will be left by the time we get there :). Franamax (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't proposing formal, Arbcom arbitration; I was speaking hypothetically. But we could try some little-a, informal arbitration, all by ourselves (if Bugs agreed, of course). —Steve Summit (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How about somebody address what is right beneath our nose instead of going far afield? This has all the feeling of a witch hunt about it. He made an edit. This was the edit: "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear." It is found in this context. Where is the great offense in that?
Is this a case of "displaced aggression?" I find the question (the one posed by the OP) very problematic. Would any of you have had a better response to the question posed by the OP? Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not talking about any one edit. We are talking about a pattern that has been ongoing for some time, that has been variously worrisome, bothersome, or offensive to quite a number of different editors here. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
But surely the question remains at least somewhat relevant: where is the great offense in his comment?
My suggestion is that the energy displayed here would be better directed to discussing how to deal with what you may perceive as problematic questions posed. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That's worthy of a thread in itself. Looking back now at the way the question was phrased, yes, how do you answer that? ("Your friend is an idiot" springs to mind, since it's a personal attack directed at an unidentified person.) I would have just as soon seen the thread closed with a not-a-forum template (and then everyone actually respect the template). But I don't know how open-ended RD/H is in general and I think I'm a bit of a hardliner anyway. I do think we could improve our early responses to potential problems. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well god knows where to post anything at this point on here. I would like to say that it appears that there is maybe a single person on here who values BB's contributions for what they are, and that the remaining discussion just seems to be between those who think that his unhelpful editing should be dealt with by administrative means or if people should just tolerate unhelpful contributors. Personally I find BB's contributions to be failed witticisms at best, off-the-cuff trolls at worst. I really do wish he would find a better way to spend his time. If other people want to bother with an RFC, they are by all means encouraged, but what a waste of everyone's time, in the end, because one poster couldn't grow up a little bit. The whole thing is sad and pathetic. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
BB seems to be making a concerted effort with his RD posts of late. I suggest we let this lie. I also think it's worth mentioning that his good responses, which are now becoming the preponderence, if not 100% of his output, are useful, valued and sometimes excellent. I credit him for that - and for apparently making a concerted effort to edit differently, something which must be tremendously difficult to do. --Dweller (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Treat this page more like an article
Bus stop wisely suggested to discuss how to deal with problematic questions, and I would extend that view to answers as well. One way to deal with problematic edits is to treat the RD more like an article, which is an idea Tango brought up above at 18:35. This could mean that it will be OK to remove off-topic texts. We have been doing that already pretty strictly when we perceived an edit to be done by a banned user, and removals such as #Removed Glass-Steagall rant have only been praised. We could just agree to treat contributions here the same. We already ave a note on top of the page that says "other material may be moved", we could simply change that to "... removed", and maybe change the unclear "relate to" to some more stricter wording. A similar box worked well on top of WT:SLR. That page limits the permission to remove posts to project members; we could use 'established editors' or 'admins' instead. Or we could have moderators, as WT:IPCOLL has. — Sebastian03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC); amended 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't given your idea enough thought to comment on it properly, but would like to note that since the two most frequent editors on the boards are also the two editors most often griped about, I'm not sure the scenario of what makes for an established editor would work very well. Just sayin'. Matt Deres (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
By "established", I meant established at Wikipedia, not just here. If we can transfer the experience from WT:SLR, then that wouldn't be as scary as it may sound; usually people are too polite to remove others' contributions. Still, some people may feel more comfortable with a limited group, which is why I also brought up moderators and admins. Moderators could be nominated as at WT:IPCOLL; if we go for that variant then I'd nominate Dweller for her superb effort in moderating the Baseball Bugs incident. — Sebastian05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One observation I would make is that we are averse to allowing the reference desk to transform itself into an unstructured forum, or chat room. But therein lies a problem when we suspect an OP of loading a question in such a way that doesn't really allow for much in the way of a reasonable response. At that point I think it is necessary to engage the OP in some type of dialogue. The OP would probably have to be told that we would really have to refine the question. This could be done politely, I think. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
That's one option of many. Often, it's better to remove the question and keep the answer on the user's talk page. To use some concrete examples from recent questions:
WP:RD/M 1933 Glass Stegall ACT: Simply remove as non-question, as done here
WP:RD/H#Obama and Schmidt (originally "Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt"): - delete as non-RD question and explain at talk page.
I don't see why no.4 cannot be answered. It's not a question I would attempt but I don't see it as a problem being on the RD. SpinningSpark15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I got it from the comment "delete and answer at user talk page" which clearly indicates you think it should be removed from the ref desk and "that sort of question really doesn't make us look professional". By the way, no one here is answering questions professionaly as far as I know, it is a volunteer effort and failure of a question to bathe the answerer in a glow of academic excellence is certainly not grounds for its removal. SpinningSpark20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't choose the right tone in my post above. Also, I realize I may have been unclear. I didn't mean to say that any of my proposals were the only way to react; In only wanted to make the case to allow more flexibility. Those people who feel #4 does not improve the RD for everyone else should be allowed to remove to user talk. Conversely, if anybody felt they had a more specific answer, they could do so, too. But nobody has done so in two days, nor has the OP shown any discontent with the reply. That shows to me that it would have been very appropriate to handle it as I proposed. — Sebastian22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Still can't say I agree with that. Grounds for removal are disruption or questions seeking debate rather than a factual answer. This question is specific, has a definite answer, and is clearly at least potentially answerable by volunteers as it is being discussed on several BBs around the internet. It is not grounds for removal that we don't much like the subject matter. As I say, I am not much interested and won't be researching or answering it, but because no one else has done so does not mean that they can't or won't. If it never gets answered then so be it, it happens sometimes, but I can't see that as grounds for removing it other than through normal archiving. SpinningSpark22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
And why is #2 not a RD question? There's some rumor about Obama- is there anything to it? (The big hoopla about that question seems to have been the provocative section heading, which was itself a quote from somebody who was spreading the rumor. That and the reply by BB.) Is there anything really wrong with the question? Would the question "Is Obama really a Muslim?" be appropriate? (I say of course it would.) Staecker (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, of course, if you treat this page like a talk page, and AGF, then you want to look for the dime in the rubbish and make out that question. But that's precisely what I mean by "Treat this page more like an article". As Dweller wrote "Consider: would it be OK if someone posted here saying they'd heard someone refer to "Nigger X" or "Slitty-eyed Y" and asking if it were justified?" We don't have to keep such rubbish. — Sebastian19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree with Dweller's note, but didn't want to answer him on the RD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Pharoah" and "Semite" are not ethnic slurs, not anywhere near as offensive as "Nigger" or "Slitty-eyed". Are these terms even offensive at all? (The implication that Obama has various secret agendas about Islam and Judaism is offensive, but that's another issue.) Staecker (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The point is not the politics but that (1) there's no way we can divine the "real motive" behind Howard Schmidt's appointment as Cyber-Security Czar, (2) we know even less whether that "real motive" was to eavesdrop on Islamic culture, and (3) if that in fact were the (fuzzily-expressed) motive, no one who was in a real position to know (e.g. at the White House, the NSA, the NSC, the CIA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) would blurt it out here. A free society and a free world thrive on free discussion and a free press, so there are many places to argue this point out and share theories and conclusions; but Wikipedia, with its anonymous contributors, neutral point of view, distaste for prognostication and advocacy, and commitment to sound sourcing (in practice at the Ref desks, when you don't have a 3rd-party peer-reviewed Reliable Source, at least something tangible and definite rather than vague and speculative), is not the place for it. Don't delete the question, but explain very early why we can't answer it. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree the question may be hard to answer, but it's not inconceivable. If the rumor is true, then there would probably be some reliable sources for us to cite. The only problem is that it's a nonsense rumor with nothing substantial to back it up (I assume). But it's still a reasonable question, which we can answer with "there is nothing to substantiate the rumors". Staecker (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene just made an interesting point[10]: "[T]he answer to the Humpty Dumpty question (a fall guy or scapegoat) turned out to be non-trivial [...].", meaning that we need to be careful and not just blindly tell the user to look up our existing article. I agree with that; it is in the human nature to be quick in dismissing something we don't understand. There is a indeed a chance that that could backfire if we allowed it to everyone. But these are details that I am sure we can solve (e.g. with moderators) if we agree that it's worth making this change of how we see the page. — Sebastian08:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(Replying to original post) I would like to make two points here. Firstly treating the ref desk as an article is a bad metaphor as it could easily be misunderstood - there are many things that are done to articles which we would not want to be done to ref desk answers. Secondly, I disagree that removal of inappropriate material should be restricted to approved moderators, that is elitist and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It is also unnecessary, the vast majority of such removals are done by the regulars anyway, rarely does a newbie touch such things, and the odd mistake can be quickly rectified. SpinningSpark14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't exaggerate. Nobody proposed to "treat the ref desk as an article"; that would be absurd. Currently, we are treating it as a talk page, which is obviously causing problems. It doesn't have to be either one or the other, we can decide to take the most appropriate from each. — Sebastian19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Besides deleting, there is more we can learn from articles. Who says we can't edit what someone else wrote here? A good example is Baseball Bugs' edit of the infamous headline, for which I applaud him. Maybe we should also allow editing posts? If we just added "Edited by ~~~~" then I don't see a problem with that. And I'm not just thinking of weird posts by SPUs. If I replied here with a complicated post, and you saw a way to provide the same answer with half the words, then I wouldn't mind if you did that with my answer, instead of adding yet another text that makes the whole thing harder to read. My point is: Let's use the advantages of wiki collaboration for this page - that's our strength! — Sebastian19:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with editing other peoples posts. You're just opening the door for confusion, people editing bits they personally don't agree with instead of actually writing why they don't agree, spelling "corrections" that are wrong because the person "correcting" didn't understand the context, a mess of "edited by" type messages all over the place that you end up not knowing where one persons post ends and the editing by another person began etc. The only way that could work is if you abolished signatures on the desks entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 December 2009
Fully agree with that, it is just not acceptable anywhere to change the text of something that has been signed. And I see you have taken your own suggestion and not signed your post:) @Sebastian, I have exaggerated nothing, I was merely responding to your own title and opening sentences, this is a bad way to describe what you are proposing. I have not anywhere said you are proposing something you are not. SpinningSpark20:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is still too much focus on those who respond to questions and not enough focus on those who post questions, commonly referred to as the "OP." Many problems can be resolved if we undertake an attitude of engaging the OP in a minimal degree of dialogue as a first step to responding to any question that is problematic in any way. We have the responsibility not only of providing responses, but maintaining the atmosphere that we think best for the desks. That involves interaction. Before a question can be responded to in earnest it sometimes has to be restated in a way that reflects the atmosphere that the regular reference desk people feel is the ideal atmosphere. Let's get back to the incident that set us off on this tangent. It was a question titled, "Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt." Right away that question, including and especially the title, should have been cleaned up. It would be my contention that it should be cleaned up in dialogue with the OP, not unilaterally. And it should really not be responded to until it reaches a state that is deemed acceptable to regular ref desk people. This could be done in a perfectly pleasant and polite way. The OP would be advised to select a title that is less colorful and less opinionated. In a polite way it could be explained that a wide range of people read these desks and we don't want to alienate anyone. It could be explained that if you want an accurate answer you don't want to express an opinion in the wording of your question or in the title chosen. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a great idea to get the OP to clean up their question, but it just isn't going to work for the same reason that not responding to trolling doesn't work. You have no way of controlling everybody and if the question is left up while you discuss a rewording with the OP someone will answer it anyway. You may well not succeed in getting the question changed at all - a lot of questions seem to be hit and run, the OP seemingly never returns. So how long are you going to leave it up? an hour, a day? Someone will respond and then it's too late to change the question and you are faced with either leaving it up or deleting it along with good faith replies. SpinningSpark00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "hit and run", there's no obligation of the OP to say thanks to the responders. That doesn't mean the OP never checks back to see if the question was answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.127 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that. I was referring to the many cases where an OP is asked to clarify but never does and is apparently not watching the page. There are also frequent requests to reply by e-mail which indicates the OP does not even intend to watch the page. SpinningSpark19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, even the cases where no clarification is needed support Spinningspark's point that we can't rely on OP to clean up their question. While there's no law that says that you have to thank others, it is customary in human society, and indeed among many animals, to show some gratitude. That that is relatively rare here seems to support Spinningspark's point. But maybe newbie OPs just aren't comfortable editing here. That gives me a crazy idea: How about if we wrote something like the following when we feel a question has been answered: "If you feel this answered your question, how about a small donation?" — Sebastian21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Huge no on the donation thing, we're not here to do the foundations fundraising, and frankly I find the banners atop every page large and unnecessarily cumbersome - we don't need to add more spam. But putting a suggestion in the guidelines that letting the desk know if their question was answered satisfactory is a positive thing, again no commitment to doing it, but a friendly reminder that it's nice to know if we've helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.127 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The Ref Desk is not an article, since all contributors are expected to sign their posts. It is more like a discussion page. The people who find none of Bugs' posts funny would likely have found none of the humor of the Marx brothers to be funny. People have very different senses of humor. Occasional and on-point humor is a welcome part of reading the Reference Desk, for me. I have found humor to be part of a college research lab, part of journal editing, and part of the engineering workplace. In any of those venues, there were some people who were offended by any form of humor, and who wanted things to be dead serious all the time. Some of the brightest and most productive scientists and engineers had a wicked sense of humor. Richard Feynman is a shining example. See Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. See also Spherical cow. I am not offended by some humor, as long as it does not bite or ridicule the OP, and as long as it does not get in the way of answering serious questions. But the Ref Desk should not morph into Open Mic Night at The Comedy Club. Edison (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
One method of correcting excess offtopic humor would be to collapse it so it takes a click to view it. That would be far preferable to any banning. Contributors should exercise some filtering; for any pun in an answer I have posted, there are at least 10 that were stifled. I want to mention Isaac Asimov as another noted science writer who frequently had a humorous touch. Edison (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
A technological fix could be a voting system, where, like the comments on YouTube videos, if particular answers get more thumbs-down votes than thumbs-up votes, the answer is automatically collapsed, but viewable by clicking it. Bugs's unreferenced opinions and witticisms would get voted out of the page on a casual viewing, but visible for the curious. But who's got the time to implement anything like that. I'm leaning toward more latitude for editors just removing offtopic answers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Many of us are likely to get royally pissed off if someone else simply deletes an answer we posted that they judge to be "off-topic." The "topic" may include issues the OP did not consider, due to the limited understanding of the issues involved. Often this would lead to a misleading and unencyclopedic response. Any removal at least calls for a posting on the talk page of the contributor whose post was removed, and preferably a posting here of the coment judged "off topic." Then the community would have the option to restore it. Edison (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A common occurrence is that an OP posts some sort of a question. It is provocative. It is designed to polarize people. Or offend a group. But is is borderline reasonable. And then they don't participate in the ensuing mess. My proposal is that engagement is the correct approach. The OP should not be allowed to be the tail that wags the dog. This is a common pattern. Questions of a lightly problematic nature are posed — and then there is no further participation from that OP. The reference desk people are left to argue among themselves.
Initial responders need simply pose a question to the OP asking for clarification or restatement or reframing of question. If the OP does not respond that is an indication that any responses that anyone may choose to give should be tempered by the possibility that the question being posed is more for the purpose of causing a reaction than for the purpose of genuinely getting an answer. Sorry — I know I'm repeating myself. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Pointing out technical issues you feel are relevant even if they weren't directly asked by the OP
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
IMHO I agree with APL here. Ariel is right that fiber-reinforced polymer is a better name but our article itself makes clear early on it's commonly called fibreglass. If Ariel read the fibreglass article and/or understood this already then I would suggest a better answer would have been "fibreglass properly only refers to stuff that is just glass, you're probably thinking of fibre reinforced polymer which is common called fibreglass but which has resin in between the fibres and comes in boards and panels" or something of that sort since that's far more helpful to the OP and question answerers Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
But why correct the person at all when they are communicating effectively and properly using the common name of a substance? With the mention of "Resin" it was 100% clear to everyone what was meant. It's not as if the linked articles answered the question. APL (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If the common name is confusing or even inaccurate I don't see anything wrong with pointing this out in a polite manner regardless of whether it's clear what the OP means, unless it's clear the OP is already aware. E.g.
someone wants to know what's the largest tidal wave caused by underwater seismic activity there's no harm pointing out that the correct name would be a tsunami.
someone says they want a list of red fruit but not vegetables like tomatoes there's no reason why you should point out that in biological terms a tomato is a fruit if the OP doesn't make it clear they understand that.
someone says that they know that whales of the species that Free Willy is eat fish and other animals, but do they eat seaweed sometimes in the wild too there's no reason why you can't point Killer Whales aren't whales even if it's obvious that's what the OP is referring to.
someone wants to know whether there are any current plans to send probes to Pluto, the furtherst and smallest planet in our solar system, the's no harm in pointing out Pluto is no longer considered a planet by modern International Astronomical Union definitions.
someone says that Pakistan has now recognised Hijras as a distinct sex, is there any other country that similarly has at least 3 different social categories for sex, there's no harm in pointing out that gender is usually the preferred term for the social categories.
Before anyone brings it up I admit none of these are that great comparisons which is why I chose so many. I'm sure there are better ones (i.e. terms in common non technical use which can cause confusion because of similarities to something else which uses the name and with an arguably better alternative name) but I couldn't rememeber any. Anyway IMHO these sufficiently illustrate the point. Even if it's clear what the OP is asking, there's no harm in trying to politely and civilly help the OP learn, which should hopefully what all OPs are here for (and many contributors aside).
It is wise to avoid long discussions. These shouldn't be necessary in most cases since if you disagree that's your right, but provided the answerer provided accurate information to enable the OP to make an informed decision there's usually no need for further response, although I admit it does happen and I've probably participated in it before. And also unwise to do it simply to debate or dispute the choice of terminology (so for example if Trovatore asks about fruit or Pluto, there's definitely no reason to point it out). I know some feel such discussions should only take place after the question has been sufficiently answered but that's IMHO unnecessary. Some OPs can get annoyed particularly if they were already aware but if you keep discussion down and are polite that should be sufficient for most OPs. And if it isn't then there's no reason why those OPs should take preference over other OPs and contributors.
The best way to bring up such points, if you're not just being pedantic (try looking for a tomato in a market's fruit section) or acting superior (the great ignorant public like you may still harbour the foolish illusion that there are nine planets, but we in the Expert Panel of course know better), is just as an additional guide to the enquirer's own search and research. And for those purposes, one could indicate if necessary (even more informally) the prevailing if incorrect understanding ("Try searching under 'vegetable disease tomato blight', 'planet Pluto' or 'Victoria House Windsor'". —— Shakescene (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't I already say that? (I would suggest a better answer would have been "fibreglass properly only refers to stuff that is just glass, you're probably thinking of fibre reinforced polymer which is common called fibreglass but which has resin in between the fibres and comes in boards and panels" or something of that sort). I'm not disagreeing with the notion Ariel's may not have handled this well/there are better ways to word a reply, simply disagreeing with APL's idea that it's not acceptable to help the OP understand that a term is either confusing or incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem here (I suspect) is that the word has two meanings (as I pointed out at the time) - and I believe there may be local dialect differences in how they are used. Ariel wasn't strictly right because the word IS used both ways - APL corrected that. I tried to clear up that confusion by invoking some kind of a reference (Wiktionary). What I disliked was that neither of them made any effort to actually answer the OP's question. So I explained about the resin and UV damage - which really is all that needed to be said. That should have been the end of the thread...what happened after that didn't add any value - and if it had to be said, should have been said here. Not really a big deal though. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Bowei Huang
Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
I just noticed that User:Bowei Huang has returned. I was a bit surprised because I thought he was a banned user. I looked at his talk page and saw nothing out of the ordinary, and then I remembered that he deletes anything that looks terribly bad from his talk page. So, since he is obviously not banned, I thought I'd just give a heads up. Simply by looking at his recent edit history, you can clearly see that he is not working in good faith. In my opinion, his questions on the RD should be read as coming from someone with intent to vandalize articles. -- kainaw™13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He is not a vandal, per se, he is someone who likes to start debates and effectively soapbox. Anyway his current questions seem fine, but I think if he starts back into "why are all humanists evil?" territory we should feel free to derail that as soon as it starts. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
From memory, an additional problem is he likes to ask the same (or very similar) question over again and seems to ignore answers already given. While not to a large extent, we do seem to be seeing signs of that already albeit a case of different desks rather then a few days or weeks later. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That pattern is definitely repeating itself on the Misc desk. We're getting ever more ridiculously detailed questions from User:Bowei Huang. So aside from not feeding the troll - what's the plan? SteveBaker (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion a community ban may be warranted. I've looked briefly at his edits outside the RD before and while some of them are helpful, quite a few are problematic. You can see a sign of this on his talk page but bear in mind he does have a tendency to remove warnings (which he is entilted to do) so look at the history too. Obviously this discussion will need to be taken somewhere else to do something like that. Failing that, at the very least a firm reminder from the community that the problematic behaviour has to stop Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, I would tend to agree, and there are precedents: I can think of two recent cases off the top of my head of editors who have been pretty severely sanctioned, not for vandalism or outright policy violations, but for excessively, persistently, annoying and tendentious editing. (Which of course does end up violating a couple of side policies.)
On the other hand, though, it's a difficult, sad, and unfortunate thing to have to do if it came to that, and the sanctionee can always drum up tons of sympathy for the way he's being unjustly censored by the mean, cruel, cabalistic admins... —Steve Summit (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edited 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)]
Following up to myself: there would be precedents, if it came to that. But I don't see anything actionable in his recent questions on the misc desk. (Annoyingly detailed, yes, but not tendentious or anything.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly difficult. When someone is totally obsessive about a subject, they can find it very hard to let even the smallest detail slip by - resulting in a ton of seemingly annoying follow-up questions. We've had similar problems many times before (Planet-colors-guy being the one I recall most recently). The problem is that in many cases, these people are acting in good faith - they can be intensely annoying - but that's just their nature - and no nastiness is intended. But the more patient you are with them - the more annoying nit-picky questions you get in return - and responding rapidly becomes a completely thankless task! But I'd find it tough to sanction someone for just that.
Most people with that kind of personality (and I come close to being one of them) tend to understand when you gently point out that this is a bit too much and please stop with this line of questioning...and that (perhaps) is the acid test that distinguishes a truly evil troll (who doesn't care what the answers to these questions are and is only spurred on to greater lengths when criticised) from a mere obsessive personality (who genuinely does care about the answers - even to the n'th degree). I feel that not-feeding is a reasonable response to both kinds of behavior.
However, it's clear from this user's talk page history (and yes - there is a LOT more going on than you see from the current state of that page) that in this case that this user is more troublesome than your average run-of-the-mill obsessive personality. He doesn't seem to operate the Wiki with enough technical finesse - so content gets blanked, redirects go wrong and he doesn't sign his posts. He also doesn't communicate with other editors - so talk pages are ignored, he doesn't respond to requests for clarification and he easily falls into revert wars, he creates a lot of stub articles that subsequently get deleted...but you kinda get the feeling that this is not a deliberate/malicious thing - but rather a failure to communicate or to understand communication.
Everything you say is true, but: I think it's pretty clear that this is not a refdesk problem. It's not ours to resolve, and it's not clear there's anything to be gained by talking about the guy here, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Check out the diff. I only noticed the situation in the Humanities desk as it completely removed my answer. Will check the other desks if I get a moment. Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixing seems to involve a lot of fiddly cut and paste. If I "undo" the edit, will that simply mess up everyone else's later answers? Matt Deres (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the normal answer would be "no", but "undo" is not allowed due to the intervening edits. Need help from someone more wiki-savvy than myself. Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think everything is back where it should be. Only the Humanities desk was affected and I was able to copy/paste the missing text from an old version. I don't think I removed anything or otherwise made the mess worse, but others may want to check my edit. Matt Deres (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if you make five edits in a row to a single talk page topic and you're the only one taking part, does that qualify you for anything? ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it just tells you that most regulars pretend not to be reading when they notice a request for help at archiving or other such tasks. Good on you for sorting it. Have a Wikicommons Yule log to sustain you in your efforts. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. I'm not sure how that happened (looks like an interrupted transfer), and I don't know why none of the double-checks caught it. Thanks for fixing, Matt. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome. If you're already planning some debugging, I'll just mention that it also failed to create December 29 date divisions on the Language and Science desks, but did create them properly on the other desks. Certainly not a big problem, but I figured you'd want to know. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
For various reasons, date insertion is a perhaps 98% proposition. When you see a date header missing, feel free to add it by hand. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a big deal and I'm happy to fix it when I see it. I only mention it because, as someone who spends his day fixing errors, I know that the toughest ones are the ones you don't know about. Matt Deres (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Incomprehensible posts on the Language Desk
Latest comment: 14 years ago56 comments19 people in discussion
I am concerned about posts being made by Mihkaw napéw on the Language Desk. At best, they tend to be incomprehensible, such as this edit. At worst, they are misleading. For example, we often get questions on the Language Desk from non-native speakers of English about grammatically correct usage. Mihkaw sometimes offers himself as an authority on English usage when it seems clear that he himself struggles with the language. This edit is an example. My concern is that non-native speakers will not be able to recognize Mihkaw's sometimes weak command of English and will accept his incorrect answers. Is there anything to be done about this? Marco polo (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I share your concern. The user in question has made 164 edits as of this writing, of which 147 are on the Language desk and the rest are either user-page or language-related. I have only read a smattering of their posts, but have not yet found one that was both correct and clear enough to make out. In general we try to self-police by noting errors in subsequent replies - and that seems to be taking place - but it confuses the questioner and takes time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps a note on the talk page would be in order. Matt Deres (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe Mihkaw contributes anything of value to the reference desk or the project as a whole (as anyone who's seen me around here probably already knows), but at the same time he's not really breaking any rules, so I can't think of anything formal that could be done. I've just started trying to ignore him. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
@Matt Deres: I agree with your assessment of the situation. Normally, it's fine to self-police responses (and, besides, people using the desk should already understand that the answers are not reliable), but with Mihkaw the discussions seem to often get quite off-track, distracting from the original question, and in any case it's not desirable to have to have a big correction session every time someone asks a question. (I don't know if other discussions with Mihkaw are getting long and off-track, but I know most of the ones I participated in did). That being said, I don't think any of his behavior is bad enough that we could "ban" him from the reference desk, and with that off the table I don't know what else could be done. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just a question of his command of English not being as good as he thinks it is. He's _trying_ to help (IMO, WP:AGF, and that), and he appears to know the theory - he just doesn't know the language. But, let's wait for his input before taking any further steps. Tevildo (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he also doesn't understand a lot of the linguistics that he professes to (particularly with regards to phonetics and phonology). But there's no expertise requirement for participation at the reference desk, so again it's not like he's breaking a rule or anything. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, Mihkaw napéw's command of Plains Cree isn't that good either, since "mihkaw", according to that page, is the inanimate form. BTW, I have already proposed a solution for this sort of problem above, so I won't repeat it here. — Sebastian07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP OP said he understood what everyone said. Maybe we could get the OP to explain Mikhaw's comment to us, since we (or I, anyway) can't make head or tail of it. In general, rather than censoring, I think it would be better, when Mikhaw throws a lot of big words out there, to ask him what he's getting at. I've known folks whose spoken English was pretty good yet their written English was like Mikhaw's. Maybe he just needs to be asked to use words of 2 syllables or less. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I take exception to the word "censoring". Editing pages is the basic idea of a wiki, and that naturally includes deletion of material that doesn't belong. Please read the warning you get each time you write something here: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." It's that simple. — Sebastian20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if you or I are read something by Mikhaw that doesn't make sense to us, should be summarily delete it? Or is it better to ask, "What are you talking about?" or more bluntly, "You've got it wrong." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. From what has been said here so far, nobody finds Mikhaw's monologues helpful, and Mikhaw shows no intention to improve them, so anyone who just deletes such a post will save the rest of us, including the OPs, from wasting more time. — Sebastian06:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, my friends Bnna, and Crett, who are in fast-print clouds which translate certain things and texts within shortest times, said recently that you the people who confuse things purposely, because you do not want readers like they to get things straight easily. They want to do the same kinds of things in their free times as you people do, and they are interested in these kinds of edits and upgrading their skills to standards.
Personally, I also usually read everyone’s edits, and I cannot say that anyone’s English is completely free from any grammatical errors; everyone have few errors in their edits that are usually not detectable by ear-toned conventions. The problem many of you might have is that not knowing or stetting aside the position of readers as learners for many reasons--perhaps a) too skilled but interested only in play, b) too skilled but interested in only in misleading, c) too skilled but not interested in other things but in idiosyncrasy, d) many other reasons.
On my user name, yes, it is correct—means ‘an unanimated red man’. It can be an irony or a meaning (though not completely correct). I do have some attachment to it. However, this is useless for others literarily, because such portrait in usernames may or may not have meanings.
Now to come to your concerns directly, my reply to your concerns is simply that my edits are nothing for your considerations, but you could have done correcting my errors (if there are any) in informative ways and as tools for communication. I edit things that I have been taught by my elders. Though I have had very less use of public services (educational institutions) to be competitive like you people in these areas, my edits are no-nonsense or misleading. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, maybe it's the opposite problem. Maybe you know English way much better than we who are native speakers, and you're leaving us in the dust. But given that, there's a good chance you're leaving the OP in the dust also. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
In communication, being way ahead of the pack is equivalent to being way behind the pack. There are parts of Mihkaw's post that have left me scratching my head: who are in fast-print clouds, detectable by ear-toned conventions, my edits are nothing for your considerations. Then, my edits are no-nonsense or misleading - I agree with the latter, not so sure about the former. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Mihkaw, this is not the first time you have accused RD editors of deliberately "misleading" you, and you have never offered any evidence or diffs to support it. Unless you can back up these accusations, you should stop.
As for whether people's messages here have "grammatical errors"...the issue in your posts is not grammatical errors. The issue is that it is difficult to discern the ideas you're trying to express, as you often fail to put thoughts together well. On top of that, you often say things that are outright wrong, and refuse to listen when people try to correct you. If there were just a few grammar or spelling errors, we would be able to understand you. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Mihkaw, please. Your English is not good enough for the Ref Desk. For that matter, it's not good enough for intelligible communication with a native speaker. Until you grasp that simple fact, we're not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion. Of course, we're happy to help you _improve_ your English, but you need to appreciate that it _needs_ improving. Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Tevildo means that your English is not good enough for you to be answering questions about English grammar and usage on the Ref Desk. You are fairly capable of getting your meaning across, and I'm sure you could ask and answer questions helpfully in other areas of your expertise. Your fluency just isn't quite at an appropriate level for you to be answering as an expert in the English language. Staecker (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a response to your request. I've - shall we say - completed the translation process for your post.
Interestingly, my friends Bnna, and Crett, who are in fast-print clouds which translate certain things and texts within [the shortest time? very short times?], said recently that you are the people who confuse things on purpose, because you do not want readers like them to get things straight easily. They want to do the same kinds of thing in their free time as you people do, and they are interested in these kinds of edits and in upgrading their skills to higher standards.
Personally, I also usually read everyone’s edits, and I cannot say that anyone’s English is completely free from any grammatical errors; everyone has a few errors in their edits that are usually not detectable by [ear-toned conventions?] [I honestly have no idea what you mean by this expression]. The problem many of you might have is lack of knowledge, or ignoring the position of learner readers for many reasons--perhaps you are a) too skilled but interested only in play, b) too skilled but interested in only in misleading, c) too skilled but not interested in anything other than idiosyncrasy, d) many other reasons. [Anacolulthon, but comprehensible].
On my user name, yes, you are correct — it means ‘an unanimated red man’. It can be ironic or an [accurate? literal?] meaning (though not completely correct). I do have some attachment to it. However, this is literally useless for others, because such portraits in usernames may or may not have meanings.
Now to address your concerns directly, my reply to your concerns is simply that my edits are [not worthy of your consideration? none of your concern?] [I don't think either of those alternatives captures what you want to say], but you could have corrected my errors (if there are any) in informative ways and as tools for communication. I edit things that I have been taught by my elders. Though I have had much less use of public services (educational institutions) to be competitive with you people in these areas, my edits are neither nonsense nor misleading.
Now, I hope that you can see (at least) how much more work you need to do on your English skills, and why your suggestion that we correct your postings isn't reasonable. Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah. See Cloud computing. Basically, take what you want to be translated, send it to 200 Ruritanian students each with a 1924 Ruritanian-English dictionary, and average the results. An experimental disproof of the Chinese room paradox. :) Tevildo (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My guess would be some area of the fast/quick printing business that requires translation. I.E. they receive the document, translate it in minutes or hours then it gets sent to print. The clouds I guess means it's a business with several or many people, each person translates a document and then moves on to the next one, sort of like the way tech support and stuff works. Perhaps there's a secondary proof reader who checks the translation but definitely they aim for speed with understandable results rather then accuracy or language quality and are likely somewhat in between a machine translation and a high quality professional translation Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Observe and learn, little ones, from what Tevildo has shown here. The Wise one welcomes correction, knowing that it is the golden path to perfection, while a Fool only defends its ignorance.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Time to bite the bullet, folks. What, if anything, are we to do about this? Mihkaw, this edit is both wrong and incomprehensible. I would support a simple deletion of it - or we can go to a formal RFC if we have to. Tevildo (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is why this scheme is not going to work. Mihkaw just undid my deletion of it, and I assume that is going to happen every time we delete; he undid Sebastian, too. The problem is, how do we set an objective standard for what counts as gibberish? We can't, so even when we think something is gibberish, Mihkaw is going to contest it and be all like "it's not gibberish, it's great".
The alternative? Ban him from replying to threads on this page. He would still be allowed to post his own questions, like this, but responses he makes to other peoples' questions would be removed without comment. We can start an RFC/U to implement this, I assume. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like this, which seems awfully close to censorship. But if he insists on reposting his gibberish rather than making any attempt to work with anybody else in making it intelligible, I'll support initiating the process. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
He is already doing that, though. And several people in the thread above already said that RDers should be more proactive about removing unconstructive posts; almost none of Mihkaw's posts are ever constructive, and a good number are actually counterproductive. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that WP:RFC/U requires that at least two editors have made a real attempt to resolve the matter on the subject's talk page, and I'm not sure that this has happened yet. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Before we make it official, we need evidence of _failure_ to resolve the situation by mutual consent. I consider that the matter has been adequately brought to Mihkaw's attention - if he continues to make disruptive replies (not implying that he's being _deliberately_ disruptive, of course), then we can initiate the formal process. But only if he continues to do so - let's hope that he now understands the position, and formal procedures won't be necessary. Tevildo (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
One thing that's puzzling is the statement "wrong and incomprehensible". If it can be determined that it's wrong, then it's not incomprehensible. Maybe the thing to do is to keep the focus on the questioner. If Mikhaw says something that's wrong or incomprehensible, then rebut the comment by telling the OP, "Mikhaw has it wrong" or "Mikhaw's response makes no sense". If he exhibits an accelerating pattern of disruption, and refuses to engage in dialogue, take him to WP:ANI and let the admins deal with it. If they won't, then start an RFC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify - parts of the offending post were wrong ("these sentences have no grammatical errors"), and parts were incomprehensible ("the second clause (an agent less passive) must follow a comma"). There is a well-known quote - "Your manuscript is both original and good, but the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good" - that I was thinking of adapting, but it didn't really work. :) Tevildo (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
People (not every one) do have habits in healing their ego by frustrating others in creative ways. However, one can always add a new comment to OP or comments to other posters; any good information is reading worthy. So no one should have this kind of feeling for this kind of thing; there isn’t any scarcity. This is one of my hobbies (like every academicians), and of course, I cannot edit if my ID is blocked. However, I can understand some of your feeling. I also felt the same way when someone said that I was wrong. It hit little bit though I am [was] in a safest position to public embarrassment. If many of you are in highest positions, it is not difficult to understand such feelings. I do not know what else to say, other than ‘it is not really worthy of your effort’; there are many ways to self expressions and self-realizations. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
One thing to remember is that OP's can be assumed to be basically intelligent. If they can't make sense out of a putative answer, or if the putative answer is obviously wrong, they're just going to ignore it. We don't have to try to "protect" them with a bunch of heavyhanded after-the-fact management of answers. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I think people may get frustrated, particularly if it's the only reply or think it's important and are trying to make sense of it but can't. More to the point, it seems easily possible people may not be aware when something is wrong. By definition people asking for help obviously don't know something. And with the RD/L both are perhaps even worse since people may think it's their fault they can't understand the post and could easily learn poor English and wrong things because they came here to learn. Note that I'm going solely by what I've read since although I'm a native English speaker, my understanding of the details of language are limited so I don't know if what Mihkaw napéw is saying is wrong and although I can see the bad English some of the stuff looks like the kind of thing that someone explaining a language thing would say (i.e. I don't know enough to know it's incomprehensible). Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that a portion of Hanlon's razor applies here. Whether to us or to Mikhaw, could be debated. On the other hand, I don't see any linguistic experts really standing up for him. So either (1) he frequently gets it wrong; or (2) we don't have any linguistics experts. From what I've seen from at least some of the contributions, I think it's safe to say the second possibility is false. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Re the title of this section "This is not working": Don't give up so easily! This is nothing new. We have seen thousands of revert warriors here, but Wikipedia is still working. "Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." — Sebastian18:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, after he kept revert warring just after an explicit warning along the lines of my previous post here.
I realize it would have been better if I had announced that here. Thank you for doing that, and for your support in this matter. — Sebastian21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sad to see that things have taken this course, but having raised the concern, I agree that we need to do something. I guess this is the least bad solution, so I support it. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone is working with full information, may I mention that Mihkaw requested to continue on my User talk page (which see) one of the earlier grammar correction threads arising from a different OP's OP (heh!). I felt this was inappropriate and declined, in part because my expertise in English is as a well-educated mother-tongue speaker and reader with specific training and experience in copy editing, but my academic knowledge of current grammatical terms and concepts is about 40 years out of date.
My impression (which may be quite wrong) is that Mihkaw has a good deal of literal 'book learning' about English grammar, but little exposure to an active spoken-native-English milieu, without which correct and colloquial English is almost impossible to perfect. I can understand his desire to improve his English language skills, but it seems to me that attempting to do so both by attempting to answer others' RefDesk queries, and by seeking direct tuition on a user's talk page, is not Wikipediatically appropriate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
