Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

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

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

Incivility at the RD

What happens to this kind of thing? [[1]] Its a clear ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.198.240 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The link you gave[[2]] is to a question about "differences ... between human and computer processing". You have added a response that is a jab at another editor whom you remark is not a child and whose response you "don't believe". I expect that all that will happen is that your contribution will be ignored. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaarrrgghh!. For years I've been proudly and truthfully proclaiming on my user page that, while I'm a ref desk regular, I have never even visited the Computing desk and probably never will. So where does the OP's link take me? The damn Computing desk. Ah well.

Anyway, this question is about Tagishsimon's "You'll forgive me if I go with the body of experts rather than a snotty and dismissive "so what" response from a random kid on a message board". 88.14's reference to BenRG not being a kid was directly countering that bit of spleen from Tagish. She did confine her criticism to Ben's response, and did not attack Ben personally, so it's not an ad hominen attack. I'll just say that Tagishsimon has been a little testy lately (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Sim Cards - 3G & video call enabled?), and maybe it's time she had a holiday. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

She?? I always thought that Simon was a bloke. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was always my default assumption too, bolstered by the “Simon” part of the name (although that can also be a surname). I did check out User:Tagishsimon’s page, and may have been misled by the references to User talk:EllenTait nrm and User:Lornafrost nrm at the top. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If a registered user has specified their gender in their preferences, all you have to do is enter {{gender:Username|A|B|C}} and the software will automatically output A if they've specified male, B if they've specified female, and C if they haven't specified. Tagishsimon is unspecified, while Cuddlyable3 is unspecified, JackofOz is male, Billreid is unspecified, and I am unspecified. Angr (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Uggh. I feel I have just been groped. Satisfied now? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Being groped can be an exquisitely pleasurable experience, particularly if the right person does it, and knows the finer points of the art. But "grope" is such an ugly word, isn't it. It makes it seem the especial province of vulgarians, but many of the finest people on the planet are given to this activity. Modesty and discretion forbid me to reveal how I know this.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not as good for me as it was for you, not even 3-play. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which brings us back to Square 1. I can't for the life of me understand why Wikipedia would want to know any user's gender. Their sex, now that makes a bit more sense. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Because a person's gender is what determines what pronouns they like to have refer to them, and whether (in languages other than English) they want the masculine or feminine form of User: prepended to their name, and things like that. So what gender a user identifies as is more relevant here than what plumbing they've got. Angr (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gender", in my day, meant "masculine" or "feminine". Where that would leave Boy George and Rosie O'Donnell, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely off-topic for this discussion? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. But no one seems to want to talk about the original topic, so the conversation has drifted away onto something else. It happens at proper RD questions, it happens in real life, and it happens here at the RD talk page. Angr (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason why MediaWiki software may wish to know a User's gender is that, linguitically, it needs to label a users Userpage, and there are often different words, in terms of "gramatical gender" that the "user" word gets assigned to the top of the page. For languages where the "User" must take either a masculine or feminine gender, the MediaWiki software has an option for the user to specify their own gender. This is beyond and aside from the sort of "social" issues which go along with gender, and deals solely with the linguistic issue which, since English just about totally has no linguistic gender at all, makes no sense to native speakers of English; however the lack of gender in the English language is a equally nonsensical to people who speak langauges where the feature is prominent. --Jayron32 01:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

English does has gender. It's just hidden within her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.198.219 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a little overstated to talk of these differences being "nonsensical", Jayron32. Anyone who's had even the most basic exposure to a foreign language would very soon realise that it's not just a matter of replacing our word with theirs (or vice-versa) while the structure and idiom and word order and number of words all remain identical. Far from it. Even those who know nothing about any foreign language would have encountered immigrants or seen such people on TV etc, and would realise there's more to their way of expressing themselves than just a different accent. They will typically employ their own native idiom but say it using English words, which don't really fit together. So, I think very few people would be surprised to discover other languages use gender in a different way; and of those who are surprised, very few would consider it "nonsensical". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

An infallible gender test is to ask the subject to stand and write their name in the snow. Infallible that is unless it is a lady named Dot. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been rereading that on and off for almost a week, but it's still enigmatically out of reach of my brain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When men urinate in the snow, the penis allows for a finer amount of motor control than when women urinate in the snow. Thus, men can use the urine stream to spell a legible version of their name fairly easily. Women, lacking a penis, don't have as much control over their urine stream, and so it isn't very practical for a woman to write her name in the snow in urine. Unless she stands still and lets the urine hit a single place, making a "dot", which is a homonym of the nickname "Dot", a common nickname for the woman's name "Dorothy". Jokes are less funny when you have to explain them. Not that it was that funny to begin with, but, you know...--Jayron32 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you after I've checked in with my friend Dorothy about all this.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed questions

I removed the trolling questions "fish vs humans" and "eco wise inventions" by IP 41.18.78.100. I hope the following who gave good faith responses don't mind: Baseball Bugs, Shantavira, Static, Mr 98, Richard Avery, Bus stop, Chemicalinterest. Looie496 has removed[3] another question by the same troll. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted myself, and approve. Looie496 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No hay problema. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up on that one. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a brain ping?

I have removed this question,[4] because to me it looks like a clear-cut request for a diagnosis. Red Act (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was actually doing the same thing and got an e/c with you.

Personally, if my brain was doing that I'd see a doctor and have it removed. APL (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the OP has now removed himself, along with a lot of his recent posts, with the Edit summary "Taking my ball and going home. Wikipedia never fails in its quest to alienate, infuriate, and piss off participants". Oh well, life goes on. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the brain ping item & was composing a brief reply when it was deleted. My reply, such as it was, could never be mistaken for medical advice.

I've also read another recent item on the Science desk, "Question about scintilating scotoma", & note that two respondents discuss the "scintilating scotoma" phenomenon but specifically make the point that they will not give medical advice.

Why could not the brain ping item have been dealt with the same way? That is, discuss the phenomenon but stop short of giving medical advice (which imo the OP did not ask for.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Describing the phenomenon is equivalent to diagnosing the questioner as having the phenomenon. The difference is clear. If I ask "What is a migrane?" and I avoid explaining that I have pains that I think are migranes and I want to know what they are because I want to diagnose my pains, then I am asking a simple question. If, instead, I explain that I have pains that I think they are migranes and I want help diagnosing my pains, then I am asking for medical advice. Many people argue that it is an argument of semantics, but pretty much all of law is an argument of semantics: Is it illegal to kill a person? What if the killer is in the military? What if the victim is also in the military? What if they are in the same military unit? What if the victim fired first? You can spend a lifetime arguing what is right and wrong. -- kainaw™ 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kainaw. In this case he's not asking about a particular medical problem. He's describing a set of symptoms, and asking us to tell him what medical issue (if any) those symptoms match. There's no way to provide a useful answer without first diagnosing his symptoms.

The fact that he believes his experience is harmless doesn't change matters. APL (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. So, to paraphrase what I think you mean, if someone names a specific "medical condition" (for want of a better term) and asks about it, it is (probably) okay to answer (depending what they ask). But if they describe symptoms, it is out of bounds because replying could be construed as giving a diagnosis. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That has been my understanding. With the one caveat that "I have condition X, what would be the best way for me to treat it?" is also a medical advice question, even though it contains no diagnosis, because it asks us to prescribe a treatment. These are usually easier to spot. ("I have condition X, what are some common treatments?" is theoretically ok.) APL (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I use Kainaw's criterion as a basis for deciding what is or is not a request for medical advice. It is one of the few semi-intelligent things that idiot has written here. -- kainaw™ 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally think this "medical diagnosis" stuff is being seriously overused. We should not be recommending any sort of treatment for a perceived problem, but I don't see why we should be forbidden to discuss anything that has the slightest relationship to human physiology. In this case, I don't see what harm would have been done by pointing the OP to our article on hypnic jerks, a well-known phenomenon with somewhat similar features. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Directing the OP to a page on something which doesn't seem to be what they are experiencing is one of the reasons we don't like to give medical advice Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not advice. It's objective and neutral information. IIRC Wikipedia's mission is to make that free to everybody. The name for restricting access to information on the reasoning "we have it but have decided that you aren't fit to have it" is censorship. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

By suggesting a page or any information, you are diagnosing the problem. Example: Some guy says "I have bad headaches." You say "Look at the migraines page." He does, decides he has a migraine, takes some tylenol, and dies a few days later from a bleeding concussion. Without doing a physical exam (in person), it is not acceptable to diagnose a person. -- kainaw™ 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Nil's point was that hypnic jerk was not what the OP was asking about, but another condition entirely. Our ability to not correctly interpret what someone has said is yet another reason why providing advice is not a good idea. Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The discussion in Kainaw's criterion says that it isn't "against the guidelines to ask a medical question. It (is) against policy to answer a request for medical advice." If this is so, is the proper response, to a medical question that would require medical advice to answer fully, a) to delete the question or b) to leave the question in place but add a note that it cannot be answered due to policy? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As demonstrated in multiple tests in the past years, if a question is left, it will be answered. Even if you collapse it and slap a big warning on it, it will be answered. The more you do to tell people that they shouldn't answer the question, the more likely it is that the question will be answered due to the general "You can't tell me what to do!" attitude of many editors. So, the absolute only way to avoid having users offer up their own medical advice is to completely delete the question. -- kainaw™ 20:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At least one user was benefited by that link to hypnic jerk.μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that this policy is being enforced with a rigor that sometimes approaches ridiculous. Query: When I run fast for a while, I start breathing hard; why does that happen? Answer: Sorry, we can't give medical advice. There must be some way to avoid descending to that level. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of farming people. If someone says they have bad headaches, it's alright to direct them to an article on migraines. They'll read it and maybe they have migraines and will be helped, or maybe they'll see their headaches are clearly not migraines and get attention. We can't be responsible for any rare mishap that occurs - we have to have faith that by and large giving people access to information is helping. We just have to not misrepresent ourselves as knowing what the person has, or able to know. We should not ever accept the arguments of those who claim that it is a bad thing to give people access to information.

There is a war between the sick and the medical cartel which seeks to keep the sick entirely dependent on them for effective treatment, drugs, and if they had their way, even traditional herbal medicines and basic medical information. Currently it is a mostly economic war, with a large number of people eventually getting treatment at the cost of a large portion of their total wealth. I suspect it may be more likely than not, as intellectual property claims become more expansive and access to medicine for the poor becomes prohibited, this will slowly intensify into an actual shooting war, where hospitals are seen as guarded bastions of the wealthy and the mob turns out to cheer in jubilation each time one is truck-bombed. But such a future is opposed when people take control of the information, find alternative means of medicine, pirate the medicines, sap and weaken the monopolies, and eventually break down the bureaucracy entirely. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between providing information and providing medical advice, but the line is very blurry. And because the consequences of incorrect medical advice are so dire, we should be extremely strict about it. There's a difference between "what causes severe headaches?" and "I have severe headaches, what could be the cause?" The former is a reasonable question (though they'll probably just get linked to Headache), while the latter is a request for advice that we should not give.

It may seem silly but, it's better to be overly strict than to give poor advice that injures or kills someone. I know it's anecdotal but, I work in an emergency department. You cannot rely on someone to make a reasonable decision about their health unless you've got them in the room to examine. We give zero medical advice over the phone precisely because people don't always tell you the full story and you don't know their medical history (which influences proper diagnosis). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bielle

User:Bielle has been giving me a hard time in my latest question the Reference Desk (the one about New York). I deleted most of his posts (he keeps bringing them back though) because I found them rude, contained personal attacks, did not assume good faith, and so did not provide any help, all of which are against Wikipedia's policies. Willminator (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a way to keep your posts short and to the point, you might not get as much flak. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-undone your deletion of the Bielle's comment. Do not remove the posts of other editors. As a side issue, s/he has a point. Matt Deres (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, but even if he or she may or may not have a point, that doesn't change the fact that he or she was being disrespectful. He or she called me a "sis." By the way, my deletion included my comments too, and it is my question. Why can't I delete things that include my comments, that don't help the question out? Willminator (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Larry Mac for letting me know about this discussion. Willminator, when you write about another user's work or behaviour, Wikipedia asks that you notify that editor on his/her talk page with a link to the discussion. Larry Mac has done that for you. You also need to be accurate in your reporting, backed up your claims by links to the content or behaviour. Rather than "keeps bringing them back" as you state above, I had, at the time of your writing, reverted your removal exactly once, here. Matt Deres has now also explained to you why above. The "sis", I explained in the last sentence of this diff to be a response to your prior use of "bro".

Larry Mac, by his link to the Ref Desk Guidelines, and Matt Deres, by direct comment above, have re-iterated my edit summary the first time I revert your removal of my posts to the Ref Desk. You do not remove the posts of other editors from the Ref Desk. If you wish to remove your own posts, a strikeout is the preferred method, so as not to make nonsense of any follow-up posts. You have again deleted my posts here and I have put them back here. Please do not delete them again; you may find yourself looking at a block. Bielle (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have sent User:Jimbo Wales an email. As the founder and owner of Wikipedia, maybe he can resolve this either in your favor or in my favor once and for all. Willminator (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo isn't going to involve himself in this. Your best option is to move on and act as though this series of events has no great significance in the greater story of your life. If you lack the basic skills to be able to do that, WP:DR is the other route. But it will not be as satisfying a result for you as "forgetting about it and moving on", which always universally produces good results in matters like this. --Jayron32 16:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't I change or edit and editor's comment if they violate any Wikipedia policy? On Wikipedia:Five pillars, read pillars 2 and to some extent 4, and let me know what you think. When I think that there is an editor violating Wikipedia's policies, I take that seriously. I know that Jimbo will do what he thinks is right whether he decides to do something or not. Willminator (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't change other people's comments. If people do something offensive, it reflects badly only upon them singularly, so there's no need to alter their comments. You can respond to people's comments in an appropriate forum, you can ask them to strikethru and/or alter their own comments, but you cannot summarily remove their comments merely because it offends you. You aren't the "5 pillars Police" and enforcing your own personal view of what the 5 pillars means isn't productive. Just let other people be a problem, and work hard not to be one yourself. That's all you should do. If it reaches the level of being disruptive, bring the issue up in a forum like WP:DRN or something like that, but if you're the only one who seems bothered, maybe it's you... --Jayron32 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've sent her a message in her talk page asking her if she could strike out the comments. Thanks for all your help. I appreciate it. Willminator (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Willminator has been busy this afternoon: 10 edits to my talk page since I wandered AFK around 13:00 EDT and a further 8 to this section of this page, most of which he has now retracted. I think the upshot is that he confesses to having removed not just my comments, but also one of Googlemeister's here which he hasn't restored. He seems to think I should make the restoration in some manner unknown to me that would subsequently delete all my comments and his related ones, too. At some stage after asking me to strikeout my comments and his (which is a request apart from his contention that by restoring Googlemeister's edit, these same edits would be deleted) he got impatient with my failure to respond -some of us have lives- and decided to do the strikeouts himself.

I am disinclined to strikeout anything, and especially given what has happened this afternoon, and inclined to remove Willimator's strikeout; however, I am open to counsel and comments. (I will notify Willimator of this comment as soon as it is posted.) Bielle (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Counsel for you is the same as I counseled him: That you go away from the issue for a few hours to give yourself a clear head, and so you can properly formulate a plan on how to proceed, and then accidentally forget that plan and go about the rest of your business at Wikipedia. Conflict does not end when one person comes up with some new way to make their side of the arguement, or when one person comes up with some action to commit that will somehow ameliorate the wrongs of their opponent. Conflict only ends when one person in the conflict walks away and forgets about the entire thing. If this were a matter of significant importance, like a conflict over article text or a content dispute, it would be worthwhile to bring in extra people and work it out. This, however is petty bickering over literally nothing of any import at ALL. Just stop dealing with it and do something else. --Jayron32 03:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion from "animal attacks" thread

I have collapsed the irrelevent side discussion regarding US-centrism at the "animal attacks" thread. The principals are free to continue the discussion here; if they feel the need to, but the discussion was doing absolutely nothing to help the OP get an answer to their earnest question. Please don't "fight in front of the children", if people must have a debate regarding meta-issues over the scope and nature of answers provided on the ref desks, have them here out of public view, and not in the actual threads where well meaning people come to get their questions answered, and not have to weed through silly debates over Wikipedia politics. People deserve better than that. Again, feel free to continue the discussion here, or perhaps on one of the user talk pages of the participants, but in the main refdesk the disscusssion was inappropriate. --Jayron32 04:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have taken this up here. My bad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion so far is reproduced here, then continues:

You guys are just begging to be taken to task by HiLo48 for the US-centricism apparent here. Many other countries have states. And whole countries themselves are referred to as states. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP's IP geolocates to Athens, Georgia. The United States is the most logical conclusion to the OP's use of the word "state". The respondents shouldn't be chided. If anyone should be admonished, it's the OP. But then we'd be accused of biting newcomers... Dismas|^(talk) 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in checking out OPs' geolocality, nor should it ever be necessary. If they specify a place in their question, fine. If not, I generally take questions at face value. I might sometimes be astute enough to believe they're casting their net too widely and are really only interested in a smaller area or set of data or whatever, but I would always check in with them about that, rather than assuming my assumptions are correct about their precise interest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It should never be necessary, but often it is. APL (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But why? Seriously, why? If I went to a real life library ref desk and asked some vaguely worded question, would the librarian just spout out a whole pile of stuff they assumed was relevant, or would they check with me first about exactly where/what/who I'm interested in. If the OP went to a US library and asked the above question, it would be more than fair enough for the librarian to believe and assume he was interested only in US states. But this is not a US library. Our OPs have some responsibility to tell us what we need to know to answer their questions properly. And it's not our responsibility to go digging around in the ether to discover what we can about where they're located or anything else about them. We're here to be of service, but that doesn't mean slavery; the OPs have to play their part too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the real life librarian scenario but here we don't have that instantaneous feedback. The OP may ask a question and then not come back for a day. And when they come back, what would be better? We answer their question with a question of clarification or we answer what we think they want to know and then they can clarify based on that? There are quite a few people who may be ignorant of the fact that these questions are not answered solely by US Americans. Just look at how many don't read the instructions and then post their contact details. Including phone numbers at times! Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"There are quite a few people who may be ignorant of the fact that these questions are not answered solely by US Americans." - wasn't that sort of my point? This reveals the US-centricism I'm talking about, and that it's not just confined to the OPs. OPs either consciously assume that we're a US-focussed organisation, or they never think about it at all and just take it for granted, as if the USA is the world, or as much of the world that's ever really necessary to think about. We do Wikipedia a disservice by just buying into such assumptions; we allow ourselves to be taken for granted. From the respondents' side, questions about presidents are always assumed to be about the US president unless otherwise specified; questions about governments are always assumed to be about the US government unless otherwise specified; and so on and on. The USA is the world's default nation, it seems. Even aliens seem to think so too, because 99% of all movies depicting visitations from other planets show them arriving on the White House lawns or nearby. But those movies are all made in the USA, you cry. So what, I retort. Next time, the OP will ask another question about states, and they'll now have a reasonable basis for believing they don't need to specify which states they're talking about, because we legitimised their non-specificity this time round. (Btw, my apologies to HiLo48 for attributing this issue to him - this one is entirely my own rant, but I suspect he'd know where I'm coming from.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So why not through in something like "Assuming that you're referring to the US..." or "Being from Australia..." to cut off the reinforcement? I admit it happens but I don't know how much of an effect you'll have on the general perception of WP for these people. Dismas|^(talk) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sorts of conditionals are absolutely fine by me. Much of the time they'll be spot on, and it's all plain sailing. But they do need to actually be spelt out, so that everyone's on the same page. Questions on the ref desk involve more than just the OP and whoever's doing the answering. There are also zillions of readers, including other ref desk regulars. They are all part of the "audience", in a sense. The responses are directed to the OP, who's the immediate audience, but they should be framed with the listeners/readers in mind. Because it's just as easy to offend these supposedly uninvolved parties as it is to offend the main players in a particular thread. Spelling out assumptions (and sometimes even why you've made such an assumption) go a long way to heading off such offence before it gets a chance to take hold, -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, just discovered this discussion. I just find it amusing that I'm seen as the champion on US-centrism around here. But US-centrism IS an issue. Like Jack, I'm Australian. Just like the USA, we have states, a (federal) government, schools, police, etc. (We don't have a president, yet.) Many other countries have similar overlaps with America. Many questions are asked on the reference desks that use one or more of those common term without specifying a country. It's possible to assume that the questioner is referring to the USA, but to do that we are actually saying that it's only people from the USA who would be unthinking enough to not tell us where they're from. So, it's actually a bit of an insult to Americans to make such an assumption. So, is it really OK for us to make that somewhat insulting assumption? I'll be honest now and say that I am a little concerned. From experience I expect the slight complexity of the logic I have just expressed could be beyond some readers. (And I don't mean just Americans!) Simply summarising, I think we should always ask for further clarification about location, etc. Less insulting, and less danger of giving an irrelevant answer.

Of course if the OP specifies that they are talking about the USA, some smarty pants is going to ask them if they mean the Union of South Africa. Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A recent question became derailed by a personal attack made on HiLo48 for his temerity in suspecting that a question was very American. The ad hominem fury that had to be boxed away demonstrates the insularity adopted by the few Americans prone to demonise people of other nations and cultures. In fact HiLo said nothing that was offensive. Anyone should be free to comment that Americans have their own historical perspective on some questions, such as those about politics, race, religion, gun law, abortion, etc. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

When an IP asks a question that is geographically ambiguous, we have the option to check the person's geolocation (not always accurate, but usually accurate enough). It takes three clicks of a mouse and no typing. It's not the best analogy, but it's somewhat similar to an OP who doesn't bother to "RTFA" before asking a question; we could look it up, but we chose not to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RTFA = Read The Fine Article. We can't geolocate registered users. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See, I have at least 2 objections to the view that we now have the responsibility to use geolocation.

• Firstly, unregistered users choose not to reveal anything about themselves, as is their right - heck, registered users have that right too. It's not for us to be tracking them down just because we can. We're not the police. Cuddlyable3 tells us we can't even use it for registered users. I didn't know that, but then, I wouldn't know the first thing about geolocating someone, and I do not want to know. But if registered users are immune from our forensic inquiries into their location, why are unregistered users deserving of any less privacy?
• Secondly, the mere location of a user does not necessarily reveal the location of their interest. Take an American user who's asking about "the Queen" or an Australian who's asking about "the President" - is it necessarily the case that they're talking about Queen Elizabeth II of the UK or the President of the United States, respectively, unless other things in their question make that unambiguously clear? I say no. Far better to start out with "If/assuming you're asking about the US President ...". or something like that. That is, we can make a reasonable guess or even an assumption, as long as we check that with the OP. What's completely not on is when a question like "How long is a presidential term?" is given the answer "Four years". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm wondering where we could put the instructions on how to geolocate someone. I don't know how. It's something I would expect to do rarely. I'm old, so I forget things. Telling me here in this thread won't help. I'll forget, and being a very transient place, won't be helpful to others for very long. So, do we add instructions to every reference desk? (We know lots of people never read instructions anyway.) I don't know the answer. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

When you find yourself on the user- or talkpage or the contribs page of an IP-user the links to geolocate are automatically shown in a grey box at the bottom of the page (the WHOIS, rDNS etc thingy). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I already said I do not wish to know that. Now I'll have to unknow it. I'll never use it anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And I already said " Telling me here in this thread won't help." Another thing I said in that post was "...lots of people never read instructions". Is posting those instructions after I said not to bother an example of that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't think you can't do disclaimers of "I don't what to hear that" in order to maintain a defence based on ignorance (at least I don't think they are valid when it is that easy to become informed on the subject). That being said I do agree with the objections being voiced here. At the very least a "I suppose you are asking for the figures from [insert country]" would be in order. We can't assume it is implied just because geolocating is so easy, after all there are such things as proxies, dynamic IPs and people posting from computers based outside their country of origin. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on. My main objection is fundamental: even if we had the capacity to find out the OP's current physical location, entire life history and knew exactly what they were thinking when they gave us their vaguely worded question, I would decline on principle to use that power. It's no different in principle from having access to police or social security records of all your friends and family and work colleagues, but not exercising that access unless there is a clear operational need to do so. One might argue that there is an operational need to get more info about the OP in order to better answer their question. Ask them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If a user asks a question, I'm quite willing to spend quite a few minutes on Google or flipping through my old books or whatever I figure might be useful. I imagine you're not so different. I've also answered questions where I only vaguely knew what the answer might be and then clarified it for myself by re-reading something or figuring it out based on prior knowledge. Again, I don't think your approach is radically different. As part of that research, I don't think it's any great leap to include checking where someone geolocates to if I think it will help. You're right; it might not help - and registered users can't be geolocated - but then we're no further behind than we were otherwise. And to my mind, it's no breach of privacy to learn that someone geolocates to the UK (or the US or what have you) - and even if it were, IP editors are warned every time they edit that they're potentially revealing their location when they press the save button.

Consider the not infrequent questions that pop up on the Misc desk that, in somewhat stilted English, ask about requirements for some weird initialism. Yes, we could ask them for further clarification, wait for a reply, then hopefully answer or perhaps ask for further clarification - or we could just see that they geolocate to Kochi, which suggests that when they say "AIMS", they probably mean AIMS - as opposed to AIMS or AIMS or AIMS and give them what they want. If we're wrong, we're no further behind than otherwise; they can still say "Sorry, no, I meant AIMS; I'll be immigrating in the fall." Matt Deres (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Some good points there, Matt. I suppose I'm still countering the view that use of geolocation is often necessary for us to do our job properly. I say it's never necessary. It may sometimes be considered desirable, and is available for those who wish to make use of it. I have retreated from my view that it should never be used; others may wish to retreat from their view that there are occasions when we can't do our job properly unless we use it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we make geolocation automatic? Extend the automated signature of IP editors to show everyone where they are, every time they post? Shouldn't be too hard for the tech geeks here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for Reference Desk users? Or alien nationals not subjects to the protections of the laws of Florida and the United States Constitution? Why not put some cookies on their hard drives, or better yet, do a deal with google to gather all pertinent information and post names, addresses, criminal records and penis sizes using little pink triangle and yellow star icons where appropriate? μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I detect an attempt at sarcasm, but not a constructive response. It was actually a serious suggestion. Knowing nothing of the aspects of the laws of Florida and the United States Constitution to which you refer, am I a debating victim of US-centrism here? Some have pointed out that the information I'm discussing is freely available anyway, via three mouse clicks. Why not eliminate those mouse clicks? HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some things merit sarcasm. Revealing user information is counter to wikipedia policy, regardless of whether that information might be available elsewhere. And given it's an American topic it's properly spelt "US-centerism", none of that putting on frenchy -re ending airs for US. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's really not a helpful tone, Medeis, and inaccurate to boot. See wiktionary:-centrism. Searching for "centerism" gets you this query. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

centrism is in many US and UK dictionaries. centerism is likely to be found only as a Wikipedia stub article about Centerism that is an ideology. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what's wrong with my suggestion. No user information is being "revealed". Maybe being made more obvious, but what's wrong with that? It's the point of my proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is reminiscent of this one. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xuttwzi_uIY/Tb3DDpPi1nI/AAAAAAAAAdM/lVediCfsefs/s1600/00059.jpg Wanderer57 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, yours is much more skilfully written. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The centerism comment was a joke. I think what we REALLY need is an icon that flashes the word Aspie after some editors usernames. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I find I have to restrain from my tendency towards the use of withering irony when performing on the global stage here. Cultural differences prevent its proper appreciation. In other words, I didn't really get your joke. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Was the reference to Aspies another one of your jokes, Medeis? Because it's pretty damn offensive, either way. You pride yourself on being an intelligent human being, that's very apparent from the tenor of many of your contributions here. You must therefore be aware that the vast majority of human communication is non-verbal. Some put it as high as 90% non-verbal. Whatever, it's a hell of a lot. But here, all we have is verbals. We miss out on all the vocal inflections and nuances, the eye movements, the facial expressions, the non-verbal sounds, the hand gestures and other body movements, all stuff that are the life blood of jokes. It's sometimes hard enough out there to "get" the real communication in among all the clatter; how much harder is it here? It's very often completely non-obvious here that a joke is being attempted. Which is why they came up with smileys, LOLs and other stuff, just so people don't misinterpret messages. You need to add them to your repertory of tricks, and use them when necessary. If the intended recipient of your communication doesn't receive it, it's up to you to do something to make it effective. It's not their fault, it's your responsibility. Resorting to calling people Aspies because they don't get non-obvious jokes, or for any other reason, is an insult to Aspies and non-Aspies alike. Congratulations, you've managed to offend everyone at one go. How about you withdraw that comment, eh? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My first thought when I read Medeis's comment was a befuddled "Why would she want a flashing sign after her name? Do Aspies make a specific type of joke that needs signalling?" Oops, bad mis-read on my part there. Even if it were self-referential, it's still impolite. Removing it would be a collegial step to take. Bielle (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say it did not occur to me it might be self-referential. But I stand by my comments that communication online is fraught with pitfalls, and special care needs to be taken, particularly if English is not one's native language - and this is a perfect example of that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a constructive idea for a user to spell their name in greeky characters followed by a flashing icon to identify their disability? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to racist and sexist comments while you bemoan your victimhood and demand special treatment is hypocritical, in case that wasn't already obvious. I don't accept the racist assertion that neurotypicals have some special duty to aspies. If your characteristics aren't your "fault" or responsibility, then neither are mine. But yeah, go ahead and call me a greeky girl and an English-challenged foreigner if those strange notions make you feel good. Until then, unless there is some reason not too, I intend to keep treating you as functioning human adults with free will and all the burdens that implies. You guys are actually fun when you have something to say about matters other than your feelings.μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to like it when someone refers to you as a greeky girl and an English-challenged foreigner. Fair enough. I wouldn't like to be called that, even if I were any of those things. But you then defend your gratuitous use of aspies as a pejorative, or what could easily be taken as a pejorative. Not having a special duty to aspies is a world apart from introducing them into the conversation in the offensive way you did. I don't understand that seeming double standard. Can you explain this to me? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Aspergerians would like to know. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gratuitous", "pejorative", "offensive"? (Compare here?) I am sorry, are you implying that I called aspies a name somewhere? If so, please provide the diff. Or are you saying you find the term itself pejorative? If so, it is you, not me, who thinks there is something inherently shameful about aspies as such. You are the one who started and continued this thread, featuring the bizarre assumption (which I opposed as counter to the spirit of wikipedia) that we should specifically tag the location of unregistered foreigners so that we can talk in terms they will understand. Now you are outraged at the ironic suggestion that those who self-identify as congenitally unable to identify irony also be identified according to that plan? Your selective,[5] self-serving capacity to feel outraged on behalf of some people for meanings you divine lay hidden behind the words of others is remarkable--morbidly fascinating--in the same way as a beggar's deformity intentionally revealed to garner public sympathy. And with repeated viewing, increasingly tedious. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. There's nothing inherently shameful about being an Aspie. No reasonable reading of my comments could come up with that interpretation. I'm defending Aspies here, 180 degrees away from putting them down.

It's referring to members of the general populace as Aspies when they don't get a joke - that's the offensive remark I'm talking about. It's like calling someone who displays one-off clumsiness a "retard" or a "spastic". The first mention of Aspies here was from you ("The centerism comment was a joke. I think what we REALLY need is an icon that flashes the word Aspie after some editors usernames."). Now, that could be read 2 ways: (a) You're identifying yourself as an Aspie. (b) You're calling those who didn't get your joke "Aspies". I initially didn't even consider (a), and even after the possibility had been brought to my attention, I discounted it because, although Aspies are renowned for not getting the jokes told by others, they are not renowned for telling jokes themselves. And this was about a joke that you had told. That leaves (b).

If you are saying that your mention of Aspies was solely to identify yourself as such a person, I will accept that, withdraw my imputation of offence, and move on. I've asked you before to spell this out for me (because it's not only Aspies who have difficulty in reading between the lines of ambiguously worded sentences). I do so again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It was unwise to introduce the term "aspie" which is at best a slang or informal term for a sufferer from Aspberger's syndrome, properly an aspergerian. Using it is about as sensitive as calling an amputee "limpy" or a half-blind person "dead-eye". Here is where Medeis introduced it explicitly in connection with what Medeis called a joke. Introducing this illness was unnecessary, it is irrelevant to what is discussed here and is therefore correctly called "gratuitous". I find it surprising that Medeis wants to remind us of this post that only demonstrates use of mockery. It contains yet more gratuitous items such as "penis sizes" and "little pink triangle" that are off topic and likely to cause offence. I see a pattern of continued provocations and nonsense being disowned by the facile "It was a joke". I see such defensive and melodramatic language in Medeis' latest offensive riposte that I don't think it comes from a stable mature person. To Medeis; I suggest that you begin making whatever points you want about geolocation, spelling, or whatever else that is constructive, in more mature language than seen hitherto. If you can't or won't then don't. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this n*gger joke more the kind of constructive discourse you are looking for? μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a famous old joke - [6]. Thanks for avoiding my question, thus confirming my allegation. Take care, now. Bye. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep an eye on this post

This particular "question", or more accurately, petition for advice is particularly troubling for me. Technically, it has no place on Wikipedia, but I also feel like this in particular requires a different level of disgression, as to what answers should be given, what is appropriate, what is too little, and what is too much. Therefore, I wanted to post here that this issue is present, and would also encourage people to let me (or anybody else for that matter) know if you feel that our responses are not appropriate, especially in light of the nature of it being the Wikipedia Reference Desk. I obviously hope for a good resolution, but I also am very aware that ethically and practically, I am very limited as to what I can say here. Does anybody have any thoughts on the matter? Falconus^{p t c} 02:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I encourage you to be a little more cynical. Most of the time when people ask strangers for advice, they know what kind of advice they want and frame the question in a way that will provoke you into giving that advice. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been collapsed, so is no longer an issue. Looie, "be more cynical" is hardly helpful advice, I believe that we are called by the guidelines to Assume Good Faith, are we not? Falconus^{p t c} 03:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You should also remember to assume the assumption of good faith; there's no need to cite WP:AGF to experienced editors who are certainly already aware of it. Moreover, WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact—it doesn't require us to abandon our common sense at the door. In general, I've found that most of the folks here are willing to bend over backwards to help people asking questions—until we get the impression that someone is asking us to bend over forwards. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Post Removed

I've removed a post by an IP that I'm 99 and 44/100% sure is from a banned user. link to diff. This is based on the reference to "Laura Shigihara" and the history of User:ColderPalace1925, who was banned for sock-puppetry. --LarryMac | Talk 12:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one should be 100% sure because the question has a reasonable answer: Jason Kapalka and Brian Fiete are the credited designers of Bejeweled Twist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the purpose of the question is to stir up a debate about the difference between who "actually" designed it and who is just credited with designing it. -- kainaw™ 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one should recognize a riff on a quite common advertising slogan and get off his high horse. --LarryMac | Talk 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood that Wikipedia is Global...

But chill out about the American-centrism business. I am not American or in the US, but I don't get a bug up my ass when someone asks a question that seems to assume an American POV. It's distracting and uncivil to butt into a discussion or question and answer without adding any other substance. More of the question Don't ask, Don't tell is about this argument than actually answering the question, especically when, as mentioned in another response, it is a fairly well know US policy that no one else even has under that term. This reminds me of another argument a few months back about another editor constantly correcting grammar, which eventually cooled down. Mingmingla (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it's counterproductive to get over-aggressive and obsessive about it, I think there can be positive value in gentle hints to the "guilty" OP (regardless of nationality) that their question is ambiguous in a global context. We claim to be "virtual librarians", and part of a librarian's function is, surely, to be educative generally rather than focussing narrowly on specific queries, in order to help a querant frame better queries and improve their learning efficiency.

Over-estimating one's centrality in the World is an ubiquitous trait: infants think they are the World, children begin to learn they aren't; adolescents sometimes forget (and/or haven't fully taken on board the desirability of smoothing the path of those they ask for help - aka "manners"); adults accept they aren't, and thus function better within it </cod sociology>. Thus, while we needn't get our knickers in a twist over the issue, such reminders (or when necessary, requests for clarification rather than wild-assed guessing) are, I suggest, indirectly supportive of our mission. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)