→question about sickness removed at Science Desk: μηδείς/Medeis warned about disruptive editing. |
→question about sickness removed at Science Desk: Medeis, please stop these veiled threats (or worse) |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
::μηδείς/Medeis, it is not '''your''' place to decide what the rules are. We have already established that your imaginary rules do not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and we have already established that you are willing to edit war to get your way. If I see you doing it again, I will take the appropriate steps to deal with your disruptive behavior. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
::μηδείς/Medeis, it is not '''your''' place to decide what the rules are. We have already established that your imaginary rules do not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and we have already established that you are willing to edit war to get your way. If I see you doing it again, I will take the appropriate steps to deal with your disruptive behavior. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:: (ec) Medeis, can you please just <u>shut the f**k up</u> about ANI. You always do this, calling on this supposed higher authority to support your stance about how the Ref Desk should work. We exist because WE say so and as long as WE have a consensus that WE should continue. We are not here because of the lofty beneficence of administrators, and their collective opinion of the Ref Desk is as irrelevant as the Ref Desk's collective opinion of ANI. I know you have some history with ANI, and not usually on the right side of the fence, and that may have conditioned your attitude to them. Me, I've never had any sort of experience with ANI at all. Ever. So I wouldn't really know how they operate except in the broadest general terms. But I do know they don't have the power you constantly attribute to them. They just don't. Please get out of your head all ideas about "having us shut down" (your frequent threat) by ANI or any other organ of Wikipedia. Please refresh your knowledge of [[WP:Consensus]]. Someone who cares about the Ref Desk will be working to make its operations improve continuously ''from within'', will not be looking to any external solutions, and will certainly not be hinting (or worse) at threats of closure. That sort of talk is for petty demagogues who don't realise how powerless they are. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[Talk]</sup></font>]] 05:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:59, 2 February 2013
[]
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Are questions of moral value acceptable on RD?
Disclaimer: I think if people look at my small history of RD answers, they'll see that I'm willing to attempt at answering questions that many others would consider unworthy of the Reference Desk. So I may butt some heads with this question and any ensuing discussion, but also anyone checking my history will know that I don't mind rough discussion, so don't pull any punches if you do want disabuse me of my RD-inclusionist ways.
I don't want to debate the actions of User:Republicanism, but my question may have relevance to some aspects of that case. But just know that nothing I say should be construed as suggesting that Republicanism's questions themselves should have been treated any different from how they were.
When a user asks whether something is good or bad, I don't really see this as only a request for mere, unverifiable opinion. Maybe it is just an attempt at trolling, but I don't think it's necessary that it is. So on a charitable reading I just take it to be a question concerning the discipline of ethics. Now maybe some editors do believe that ethics is just mere opinion. That's fine, I don't want to try here and now to convince others that it's more than that. But holding the opinion that ethics itself is a matter of opinion is not enough to overrule the significant viewpoint that its not. That is to say, there are, I think, sources which lay out ethical theories and make ethical statements, and these sources are considered reliable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. To me, that seems like enough: If some work on ethics is published by a mainstream academic press or journal, and this work can offer an answer (even if not the right one) to a question as to whether something is good or bad, then such a question is acceptable on the Humanities Reference Desk. And it goes similarly for other questions and other reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- While I generally agree that if a non-trolling, non-advice question can be answered with reference, it should be, I don't know if I can support this. It's not that they don't deserve an answer, exactly, but I'm not sure our community is really in a position to do so. Ethics might be a well-studied field, but if I'm not mistaken, the details can vary a great deal between cultures. Better to avoid the minefield entirely. Mingmingla (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- A question of "whether X is bad" is an unequivocal invitation to debate. A question as to "whether X is bad according to Y-ism" is a totally different thing, but one we rarely encounter. Even then it may be trolling, since I don't want people reading this to think that a whole spate of random "is X okay according to Z" questions will be tolerated. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- You should know I respect all your answers Medeis,
- Given that philosophy is the root of most modern science, and today plainly at the heart of the humanities, of course we can answer questions about morality. There are any number of sources both for general analysis, e.g. John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Sandel's Justice, or Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. And of course there are innumerable sources for the morality of specific actions or systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Explicit requests for sources on ethical questions are fine (which is rare though), and there may be some odd questions that just need to be left alone long enough for the more resourceful responders to have the time to provide interesting sources. Otherwise I'm ambivalent and do not mind whenever trolling nonsense gets shut down. -Modocc (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've taken everything you four have said to heart. I propose adding to the guideline here: "The reference desk is not for asking open-ended questions as to whether something is moral, immoral, good, bad, right, or wrong. Such questions should be made with regards to a specific ethical theory, philosophy, religion or worldview. For example: Questions like "Is lying wrong?" are unacceptable. Questions like "Is lying wrong according to Kant?" or "Is lying wrong in Islam?" are acceptable, assuming they also meet other policies and guidelines." So questioners asking the open-ended ones can be directed to this guideline and requested to re-ask the question with more specifics. This helps in avoiding pointless debate and trolling, but also rightly directs those questioners who are honestly trying to get references and answers for ethical issues. Obviously a whole spate of questions on this topic should not be tolerated, but I think that's true for any topic. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- One problem we have is the tunnel vision of some of our editors. We get a lot of questions about institutions or practices in the USA which don't say they are about the USA. The questioner is simply not thinking of the wider world. So a question of "Is lying wrong?" can really mean "Is lying wrong in mid-western American Christianity?" Is that OK? HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also: WP:Randy_in_Boise - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse
Should a link to Wikipedia:Teahouse be placed on the section "For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:"?···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 09:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- That article needs a better illustration. The teacup has been sitting there so long that leaves have fallen into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Rate of fire
I did not try to offend anyone by my statement, but I asked a simple question and I was treated like a little child. I have served in the USN and traveled the world over. The first question was answered by either a lady or gentleman was very rude. I asked my question and really got no answer. The I did not read down far enough to find the answer that I wanted. The lady or gentleman that gave me the answer of about 12 rounds per hour, I do thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.166.195 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't responded to any of your questions, but I am sorry that your experience hasn't been the best. What my compatriots were trying to tell you, with varying degrees of success, is that Wikipedia is a global project and terms like "civil war" are vague because they've been used in so many times and so many places. See, if you and I were sitting in a bar together and I asked for directions to Springfield, you'd assume it was the one closest to us, but that doesn't work when we're in different countries; you don't know what Springfield I'm talking about. To be honest, some of the attitude you experienced is because, by and large, Americans seem to have a more difficult time understanding how "un-local" the rest of the world is. Yours is not the only president, yours is not the only senate, and yours is not the only Civil War. The relevant article is American exceptionalism (and, less euphemistically, Ugly American). Matt Deres (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Putting aside the ridiculous overreaction from Alex, and Matt's typical response above ("americans are vain"; give me a break) and those that followed, you got some decent answers. You could have just googled the exact same question. Your follow up version was just plain silly. There's a lot of silly anti-americanism on here, and similarly, the anti-commonwealth mentality. Silly nationalism is par. Quit making such a big thing out of it, at least like this. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Shadowjams, the "Americans do X" bullshit is not appropriate or necessary or true. The OP's threads have been closed by Americans and moved here by Americans, and an apology would not be out of order. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the questioner needs a slightly thicker skin if they are going to ask questions on the internet. As to the civil war lots of countries have had them, and as to the other businesses mentioned without context like a president and a senate Ireland for one can claim all three, if claim is the right word to apply to a short but bloody civil war which incidentally also involved field guns. I don't think there are any civil war buffs in Ireland who try and recreate it though! Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Give it time.... Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- All the IP had to do was say, "American" Civil War, instead of going off on a rant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- My experience has been that even asking obvious clarification questions like "Which Civil War?" leads to some of the more sensitive(?) among us telling me that I should have been able to work it out. I think it's important to educate questioners that it's important to make their questions as clear as possible. The reality is that there is an awful lot of American editors and readers of Wikipedia. Even if it's the same proportion of them as from other countries who ask questions biased towards their own country without making it clear that they're doing so, that means a larger number of Americans will. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's even more pointed than that. Sometimes the message is like: "Not only should you have been able to work it out, but I know you in fact have worked it out, and you're just playing dumb in order to make the point that people should specify what they're talking about". We all learn from these sorts of interactions, but in saying that, I don't know that there's any easy or quick fix. There will always be a tension between:
- those who believe a reference is self-explanatory
- those who are genuinely in need of further information, and
- those who can work it out but feel they shouldn't have had to.
- Best we can do is minimise it. Maybe if some were more prepared to be a little more specific in their posts, and others were prepared to be a little less global in their perceptions. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- To me, the bottom line question for the original poster is, "How badly do you want to know? Are you here to learn, or are you here to hassle us because we're not mind-readers?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- But Bugs, the real tunnel-visioned ones won't even understand that they're hassling us. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that our problem? Is it our responsibility to de-dense the dense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem in this case is that no one gave the OP a chance to prove their lack of density before they were jumped on for not fully explaining themselves. Yes, we are not mind readers but neither is a question asker, and as such we should avoid assuming they'll react badly if we ask a simple clarifying question. If someone, the first to respond, had just asked. "Sorry to bother you, but there have been a lot of civil wars in history. Could you clarify which one you mean?" and then everyone just kept quiet until the OP responded to that sort of question, we could have proceeded from there. The main problem is that everyone started with the assumption that the OP was an idiot, and made pointed, obtuse, and borderline insulting responses which put the OP on the defensive; it isn't any wonder that they reacted badly when they came back to see what responses they got and ended up with the kind of silly hostility that was greeting them. Did the OP need to clarify which civil war so people here could answer intelligently. Yes, but they were never given that chance. --Jayron32 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In my view the thing to have done would have been to make the obvious assumption that the OP was asking about the American Civil War and answered the question on that basis. I don't agree that we should be educating questioners to make their questions country-specific. It's not a big deal. Just answer the question already! --Viennese Waltz 10:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- As noted below, the OP still doesn't seem to realize that this is not a US-only website. As an American, I immediately assumed "USN" meant "US Navy", just as I figured he was probably asking about the American Civil War in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Those are the obvious assumptions to make, so why bother asking the OP to clarify? I couldn't care less if someone doesn't specify their country and the country they're talking about is as obvious as this. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The question could be whether the ones who started jumping on the questioner (who only posted the one time, by the way) was because they truly didn't understand, or if they were just being nitpicky in the style of Cuddlyable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Those are the obvious assumptions to make, so why bother asking the OP to clarify? I couldn't care less if someone doesn't specify their country and the country they're talking about is as obvious as this. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- As noted below, the OP still doesn't seem to realize that this is not a US-only website. As an American, I immediately assumed "USN" meant "US Navy", just as I figured he was probably asking about the American Civil War in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In my view the thing to have done would have been to make the obvious assumption that the OP was asking about the American Civil War and answered the question on that basis. I don't agree that we should be educating questioners to make their questions country-specific. It's not a big deal. Just answer the question already! --Viennese Waltz 10:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem in this case is that no one gave the OP a chance to prove their lack of density before they were jumped on for not fully explaining themselves. Yes, we are not mind readers but neither is a question asker, and as such we should avoid assuming they'll react badly if we ask a simple clarifying question. If someone, the first to respond, had just asked. "Sorry to bother you, but there have been a lot of civil wars in history. Could you clarify which one you mean?" and then everyone just kept quiet until the OP responded to that sort of question, we could have proceeded from there. The main problem is that everyone started with the assumption that the OP was an idiot, and made pointed, obtuse, and borderline insulting responses which put the OP on the defensive; it isn't any wonder that they reacted badly when they came back to see what responses they got and ended up with the kind of silly hostility that was greeting them. Did the OP need to clarify which civil war so people here could answer intelligently. Yes, but they were never given that chance. --Jayron32 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that our problem? Is it our responsibility to de-dense the dense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- But Bugs, the real tunnel-visioned ones won't even understand that they're hassling us. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- To me, the bottom line question for the original poster is, "How badly do you want to know? Are you here to learn, or are you here to hassle us because we're not mind-readers?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's even more pointed than that. Sometimes the message is like: "Not only should you have been able to work it out, but I know you in fact have worked it out, and you're just playing dumb in order to make the point that people should specify what they're talking about". We all learn from these sorts of interactions, but in saying that, I don't know that there's any easy or quick fix. There will always be a tension between:
- By the way, is USN the United States navy? I stuck USN into Google and it just came back with a whole page of returns about Ultimate Sports Nutrition. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Google?! There's an encyclopedia around here some place, with its own search function, and I'm reliably informed (by myself) that if you search for USN you get United States Navy. Try it some time. :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry yes so it does. I normally use Google to resolve what a name refers to though - I don't rely on Wikipedia for that sort of thing. In fact by WP:COMMONNAME if we had an article of USN it looks like there would be a strong case for it to refer to that food supplement! Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Google?! There's an encyclopedia around here some place, with its own search function, and I'm reliably informed (by myself) that if you search for USN you get United States Navy. Try it some time. :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The first reply was rude? The first reply politely asked if you would mind telling us which civil war you were asking about.(Since there have been an awful lot of them.) Apparently you did mind, but the reply was in no way rude. APL (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ikr... "Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please?". "Please"? What an attempt at talking down to someone... But in all seriousness, perhaps if the OP had taken part in the question's discussion prior to it being archived, they would have noticed that some things needed clarification, and it wouldn't have gone on this long. I would have guessed U.S Civil War though... despite being from Australia - that is, Australia, Earth, to clarify. HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it was pretty easy to guess he wasn't asking about Australia's civil war, or not even this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ikr... "Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please?". "Please"? What an attempt at talking down to someone... But in all seriousness, perhaps if the OP had taken part in the question's discussion prior to it being archived, they would have noticed that some things needed clarification, and it wouldn't have gone on this long. I would have guessed U.S Civil War though... despite being from Australia - that is, Australia, Earth, to clarify. HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- The question is whether we are trying to actually help people or are competing in some sort of game for attention, affirmation, cool-points, what have you. It's one thing to ask for a little clarification but it's another to be willfully dense to prove a point about someone else's allegedly narrow worldview. If you don't like a question, or a questioner, then ignore them, move on, let others deal with it — your contribution will not be missed (unless you are SteveBaker). And no, the fact that the OP got irritated at such pedantry and said silly things as a result does not validate the original jerk move in any way. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron's got it right here, folks. (Mr.98, too.)
- To anyone who's insisting that it's vital to "educate" people on the proper way to ask questions: Yes, certainly, it would help if people asked better questions. But: breaking news: people as a whole are never ever going to learn this. (And then again, by about the same argument, it would help even more if they'd learn the answers to their questions such that they didn't have to ask them in the first place, and then where would we be? Where do you draw the line?)
- Anyway, as this thread shows, if you insist on "educating" people in this way, you are going to end up annoying them, precisely as the original poster was annoyed here. You are, pure and simple, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You should also revisit this thread up the page, and read the linked-to essay. (It's about a slightly different issue, but the sentiment is exactly the same.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Given that OP's often don't return (as with this case), the most obvious approach to the question would have been to say, "If you mean the American Civil War, then the answer is..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- ...which is what someone did, once someone with the answer came forward. I still think it's fair that the posters were (sort of) trying to clarify the country - even though the U.S Civil War is the most likely answer, no-one should have to go through every Civil War in an attempt to guess the correct one HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 07:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Given that OP's often don't return (as with this case), the most obvious approach to the question would have been to say, "If you mean the American Civil War, then the answer is..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I saw so much over-reaction going on. Alex Tiefling's initial response was:
- Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please? It makes a substantial difference to the answer to your question.
When Crisco said: American, most likely, Alex responded with:
- Probably, but I didn't want to make the crass assumption that people who say 'the Civil War' and expect us to just know which one they mean are all Americans. There was a Civil War over here in England (indeed, a complicated bunch of them) in which the use of cannon was crucial - to take just the other really well-known English-speaking example.
What we had so far was a perfectly fine and pleasant and courteous request for clarification, followed by a perfectly fine and pleasant and courteous explanation of why that clarification was sought. If you read the 2nd post again, you'll see that the reference to Americans was not to have a swing at Americans (as some here seem to have read it), but to explain that he was NOT, repeat NOT, assuming the OP is an American, which is exactly why he needed the civil war to be identified.
Then jpgordon comes along and accuses people of being "snippy and unhelpful". That was where this all started going bad. There was nothing either snippy or unhelpful about anything AlexTiefling wrote. But jpgordon's characterisation may have put ideas into the OP's mind, because now he's accusing Alex of being rude and treating him like a little child, neither of which was ever the case as far as I can tell. If anyone's been treated rudely here, it's Alex (although I'm not accusing the OP of that).
Now Shadowjams is calling what Alex wrote "a ridiculous overreaction" – to which I remind him of pots and kettles etc. If a simple request for more information so that we can provide the OP with an accurate answer is a "ridiculous overreaction", then bring on the crystal balls by the truckload.
Jayron is asking that such clarification be sought "in a non-confrontational way" – please identify anything that was remotely confrontational about it.
APL can't see any rudeness in Alex's posts. Neither can I: quite the reverse.
On the other hand, Handsome Nick says it was an attempt to talk down to the OP; but he seems to now be backtracking with "no-one should have to go through every Civil War in an attempt to guess the correct one".
Alex hasn't back to defend himself, and I wouldn't wonder he's left WP for good if that's the way he's treated for doing exactly the right thing. If what he wrote was so bad, can someone please suggest a form of words that would have been more suitable as a request for clarification? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- sorry Jack, I should have made my sarcasm a bit clearer, I thought I was going too far at first and scaled it down. I just found it funny that the first reply was considered rude, when Alex asked "please?". HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Sorry for misconstruing your post. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Far from leaving WP, I hadn't even seen this thread! My life is quite busy at the moment. Thanks for stepping up to my defence, Jack. You've understood my intention perfectly: I'm really surprised at the accusations of rudeness. I certainly can be rude, and I've apologised to a few people recently for being snippy in various discussions around WP. But this wasn't one of those times. I genuinely wanted to help the OP clarify the question, because I have a pile of dead-tree reference books at home which might have been useful in the English Civil War was being discussed. I grew up in an environment where 'the Civil War' always meant the English Civil War, just as 'the Last War' always meant WW2, even after the Falklands War had come and gone. I really wouldn't want to assume that such uses, innocently meant, were the exclusive preserve of crudely-stereotyped lazy Americans. Whilst I certainly don't like American Exceptionalism, I also fiercely dislike the many unfounded accusations of exceptionalism that are hurled at American editors here. If anyone is able to explain how I've been rude in this case, please let me know; apologies, where due, are sure to be offered. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ironically, if the OP had initially posted with his IP instead of a one-shot user ID, the question need not have arisen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't really affect the general point on how we should response to such questions.
- But personally, I believed long before this blew up based both on the obvious similarities in names as well as the question type and wording that the editor involved is a sock of User:Wrk678, themselves almost definitely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, User:Kj650 and the so many identities besides, both linked and unlinked. (Although the connection between Wrk678 and Kci357 was never firmly established mostly because I couldn't be bothered wasting my time finding the evidence. And I'm not sure whether anyone bothered to clearly establish the link between Kci357 and Kj650.) Their response (both wording and tone) to the which civil war issue only served to support my view (in the past they've usually dismissed reasonable criticism of their questions or assumptions). Of course with only these few contributions, it's difficult to be that certain. And I am a bit surprised by the geolocation data although it is an IP for a wireless connection so it may not be particularly accurate.
- I actually opened a case on this before it blew up but it was rejected based on insufficient evidence/fishing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrk678/Archive. I don't blame the CU/clerk, in truth I somewhat suspected a response like as that's a fact of the way we operate on wikipedia and one of the reasons I often don't waste my time with SPIs. (E.g. I noticed Wrk678 long ago but didn't push for them to be blocked until that nonsense about a rape victim, similar with other identities both theirs and previous problematic editors.)
- However if I am correct, it seems that after I pursued them more vigorously after the rape victim nonsense, our friend has now taken to changing identities even more frequently then in then in the past where they either waited to be blocked or to when they got a few warnings. Now using them for only one or two questions and also using apparently highly dynamic IPs. While the CU/clerk never responded to my question on a range block, if I'm correct this seems unlikely to be possible (and if I'm not then perhaps there's no need). Since they don't seem to be a troll per se, the only real option would be letting them be as we have in the past, and blocking when they do go overboard again whether it's to do with celebrity nipples, immunity to choking, how to speed in suburban streets or whatever. At the very least, since they came back as Wrk678 they seem to have toned down their behaviour on the encylopaedia proper. And if I am correct about all the recent identities, they are possibly defaulting to RDS slightly less.
- Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ironically, if the OP had initially posted with his IP instead of a one-shot user ID, the question need not have arisen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Has anyone come up with a rate of fire btw? Ssscienccce (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- As the OP mentions above, a figure of 12 rounds/hour, with a suitable source, was eventually provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Article submit
I am trying to find any articles for the submission for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bone Eater if you can find any sources for the book I would hope there would be somthing usful.--Oh Goes the Waterholes (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Medical advice question removed at Science Desk
I removed a medical-advice question and its answers, (diff). Nimur (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
question about sickness removed at Science Desk
I agree with the above, but on the other hand, this edit was not justified. The edit contradicts the guideline at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines in two ways.
First, it uses a template that marks the collapse with "close request for medical advice". Not only is the section clearly not a request for medical advice, but the answer by StuRat says "I believe Jayron incorrectly removed this Q as a request for medical advice". This difference of opinion should have been discussed here. See WP:BRD.
Second, the edit summary ("The default position is not to give free medical advice, nor comments without links or references") misstates Wikipedia policy. W:RD/G says "General medical questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?') are fine." and "it is still helpful to contribute from your areas of personal expertise." There isn't a "no comments without links or references" rule in the guideline, and the requirement in the edit summary is higher than the standard for Wikipedia articles (WP:V), which is that all material must be verifiable, and all material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Nothing that StuRat wrote is likely to be challenged, and if someone does challenge statements such as "Genetic variation causes individuals, even in a family, to have different immunity to each disease" or "young children tend to be far sloppier with hygiene" we can easily give citations supporting them.
I am all for following the guideline about medical and legal advice, and I am fine with erring on the side of caution in marginal cases, but I am against inventing new requirements that are not found in our guidelines and shutting down conversation based upon these made-up requirements. As W:RD/G says, "Many people have their first Wikipedia experience asking a question at the Reference Desk and it is a good opportunity for us to build goodwill with the readers which in turn can help the encyclopedia." It does nothing to build goodwill when we don't follow our own guidelines or when we label something as a request for medical advice when it clearly is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- The OP is asking for an explanation of his sickness--as far as we know it might be cancer, worms in his drinking water, or mental illness, none of which can or should we be commenting on, and the "response" is StuRat's usual off the cuff baseless opinionating on ever single question regardless of expertise or links and refs. There's no question here we can answer and no answer has been given. I am closing it again. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- First, did you even bother to read the question? He asked why he doesn't get sick. If he was "asking for an explanation of his sickness" (which he isn't), I would have agreed with your actions, and no doubt so would StuRat.
- Second, you are attempting to enforce your view on this by edit warring rather than discussing and seeking consensus. It's WP:BRD, nor WP:BRRD. -- you are at 2RR now and if I decided to edit war myself (which I refuse to do), I have no doubt that you would instantly revert, putting you at 3RR. Please self-revert your last edit and seek consensus through talk page discussion.
- Third, you did not respond to my comments about you making up new rules that are at odds with the actual guidelines. Are you willing to make a commitment to stop doing that? If, instead, you believe that your "no comments without links or references" rule is in the guidelines, please explain the basis of this belief. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- The OP in that case asked why his family gets sicker more often than he does. No one here is qualified to answer that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- No one here is qualified to edit Health#Self-care_strategies either, but nonetheless it remain editable. The issue is not whether anyone here is qualified to answer this question. We can find sources that cover the legitimate scientific question of how much effect genetics vs. environment have on general health. The issue is whether telling the OP about some of the known contributors to poor health or good health which are behavioral instead of genetic is giving him medical advice. Why is it that I can advocate things such as washing hands with soap and brushing and flossing teeth if I am editing Health#Self-care_strategies, but not if I am answering a question that isn't even close to being a request for medical advice? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion on this matter was requested. I have given this deep thought. My official position on this matter is this: Meh. I hope that provides the additional input everyone needs to resolve this issue. --Jayron32 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't an actionable request for medical advice, that's for sure.
- StuRat gave a fine answer, which remains despite the unnecessary hatting.
- (To avoid confusion, I'm splitting this discussion off from the thread above it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can only assume that those people who thought it was a request for medical advice were unable to decipher the bad English from the OP. I took it to mean "Why do I get sick less often than the rest of my family ?", which is certainly not something you go to the doctor to determine ("You want to get sick more often ? Well, what you need is an injection of HIV !"). StuRat (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am concerned about μηδείς/Medeis. I noticed that she sees herself as the Enforcer Of The Rules, collapsing whatever she sees as being not allowed. The problem is that she makes up her own rules and edit wars to enforce them. For example, look at the rule she enforces in [1] and [2]: μηδείς/Medeis made up a rule that says that all responses must have citations. (the actual rule is that comments which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need citations. See WP:V.) and the second edit was a re-revert without discussion, which violates WP:CONSENSUS.
- When I posted the comment that starts this section and reverted his edit while urging her to discuss it here,[5], and with a UPPER CASE comment saying "PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE"; μηδείς/Medeis made a comment here and re-collapsed the discussion three minutes later.[6] For those keeping score, at this point she has been reverted twice by two different editors, and she is still using reverts to push his version. So I am seeing a refusal to follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, and a definite case of WP:OWNERSHIP.
- The only remaining question is one that only μηδείς/Medeis can answer. Will she stop violating Wikipedia policy voluntarily, or will I have to bring this up at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U so that she has the choice of following Wikipedia policy or being blocked from editing Wikipedia? μηδείς/Medeis, I strongly urge you to stove edit warring and to discuss these issues here. I realize that, like most people who violate Wikipedia policy, you probably think that you are right. And I also acknowledge that you may be right and I may be wrong. If you stop reverting and discuss your actions, you may very well convince everyone here that I am wrong (and of course in that case I will accept consensus) Please talk it over with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's still a medical question about his family, and no one here is qualified to give him advice on that point - only a doctor can do so. It never ceases to amaze me, how so many editors here are so eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are begging the question. You have not yet established that the rules were violated or that the section in question is asking for medical advice. It appears to me that the consensus so far is one editor agreeing with you and three disagreeing (2 to 3 = no consensus). Please don't accuse other editors of being "eager to violate the rules". That is an insult, and a clear violation of WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that some people are -- perhaps accidentally -- attempting to enforce a slightly different rule than we actually have. The official policy is: medical information okay, advice about your specific medical condition bad. But questioners have a tendency to mention themselves in, and even personify, what ought to be a perfectly abstract, hypothetical question. ("I was wondering"; "Suppose I ingested", ...) And then some responders tend to latch on to the personal pronoun in the question. So instead of "requests for advice about your medical condition are prohibited", we end up with people enforcing the non-rule that "questions in which you mention a medical topic and yourself are prohibited." —Steve Summit (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah give it up, Baseball Bugs. StuRat was right, it was nothing more or less than a request for information as to why some people (e.g. some members of his family) get sick more than others. Nothing wrong with that so move on. --Viennese Waltz 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you think there are no users here that are eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice, then you have not been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you aren't going to get out of the hole you have dug that easily. You didn't say that some random vandal is "eager to violate the rules". You said that I was. Again I tell you, before you make claims about why I violated the rules, you need to establish that I actually did violate the rules. Which I didn't, as four people have already told you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but still pretty sure) Bugs isn't talking about you anymore. He's probably got someone else specifically in mind. There are some users who do have an idiosyncratic and non-consensus view that there should be absolutely no prohibitions against medical advice at all on the reference desks. Those users have been reminded that they should not act on that view, and have recently stopped doing so. I don't believe Bugs is accusing you of being one of those users, merely that he is noting the existance of those people. I agree that bringing such an issue up here in the context of this discussion is a bit of a non-sequiter, but the core of his argument is truthful. There are people who don't believe in the "no medical advice" prohibition, and until a few months ago, they used to violate that rule with glee. It has died down, but the memory of the conflicts this caused has perhaps left some scars that Bugs is somewhat imprudently reopening here. Of course, he can speak for himself, and I may have misread the situation entirely, but in my assessment here I don't think Bugs is referring to you specifically. --Jayron32 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, my apologies to Bugs for misunderstanding him. I would like to add that I am 100% with him on keeping medical and legal advice out of any Wikipedia page. It's a no-brainer: the wrong legal advice can ruin your life and the wrong medical advice can kill you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron has it figured right on all counts, and I apologize also for being so aggressive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not our place to answer a question we can imagine the OP might have asked, but didn't. It's not our place to give unreferenced answers like StuRat's to any questions, whether they make sense or not, and it's not our place to assume that every question is inherently valid unless a US Supreme Court case rules it valid. In case of doubt we refrain from giving medical opinions. We are not qualified to tell the OP why his family gets sick. If anybody wants to take this to an ANI again, feel free--although the last several times their opinion was that the RD should be shut down-they just didn't act on it. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to think that every response must have a reference. We have no such policy. And you seem to be the one who misread the Q. As for ANI, they don't care about the Ref Desk, so anytime you waste their time discussing it, they are bound to just wish it would go away. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- μηδείς/Medeis, it is not your place to decide what the rules are. We have already established that your imaginary rules do not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and we have already established that you are willing to edit war to get your way. If I see you doing it again, I will take the appropriate steps to deal with your disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Medeis, can you please just shut the f**k up about ANI. You always do this, calling on this supposed higher authority to support your stance about how the Ref Desk should work. We exist because WE say so and as long as WE have a consensus that WE should continue. We are not here because of the lofty beneficence of administrators, and their collective opinion of the Ref Desk is as irrelevant as the Ref Desk's collective opinion of ANI. I know you have some history with ANI, and not usually on the right side of the fence, and that may have conditioned your attitude to them. Me, I've never had any sort of experience with ANI at all. Ever. So I wouldn't really know how they operate except in the broadest general terms. But I do know they don't have the power you constantly attribute to them. They just don't. Please get out of your head all ideas about "having us shut down" (your frequent threat) by ANI or any other organ of Wikipedia. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:Consensus. Someone who cares about the Ref Desk will be working to make its operations improve continuously from within, will not be looking to any external solutions, and will certainly not be hinting (or worse) at threats of closure. That sort of talk is for petty demagogues who don't realise how powerless they are. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)