Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sluzzelin (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 14 January 2015 (→How to Encourage a Regular Reference Desk Contributor to Stop Contributing?: too iffy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

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

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hemorrhoids

An IP poster asked questions about the article on hemorrhoids and pointed out inconsistencies. After some discussion, I said that the place to discuss improvement to an article was the article talk page, Talk: Hemorrhoids. At this point the IP became snarky. I have taken the less drastic action of boxing the discussion rather than of hatting it, to preserve a valid question and what I think were valid comments and a valid answer. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is appropriate for a reader to ask on RDS a science (in this case anatomy / medical) question to clarify an unclear statement in an article. Once the question has been answered, any extensive discussion related solely to article improvement should be shifted over the that article's talk page. In this case, the two short follow-on edits after the primary question was answered (one asking for verification that the article's usage was indeed incorrect, and the other confirming the problem and indicating that they would edit the article for clarity) hardly seem excessive.

The OP's response to your note was harsh and escalated the conflict, but the desk would have been better served had you instead first written:

Further discussion concerning the improvement of this article should be held on its talk page.

Your note could be (and likely was) interpreted as stating that the original question itself was not appropriate for RDS.

The boxing itself is somewhat disruptive to the desk as it emphasizes the conflict. I will now remove the box and will hat the short argument with a title suggesting that further article improvement discussions should be done on the article's talk page, and with a link here inside the hat's body. -- ToE 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Also, I see that a constructive editor, unlike the OP, has edited the article. There is something to be said for asking questions about articles at the Reference Desk or Help Desk, but not much to be said about blowing off constructive suggestions. A standard response at the Help Desk is to state that the first place for comments about an article is the article talk page, and this comment is also appropriate at the Reference Desk when it is an actual article question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but there's a valid point that talk pages, though ostensibly the first place to go, are in fact often not very useful. The talk page has had almost no traffic until the question was raised here. The only thread on there was from 2005 - and the conversation lasted seven years. I'm in no way saying that the suggestion to ask on the talk page was incorrect... technically. But in this specific instance, it's the equivalent of telling someone to go ask an empty room for advice. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with most of what you said, but although the RM may have linked to it, as the talk page itself says, that's the wrong talk page. The right one is . This was only clearly noted recently albeit nearly 2 months before this discussion. (If the IP had visited the talk page directly from the article, it's fairly unlikely they would have ended up at the wrong place.) The only other thing I will add to this discussion is traffic or activity not necessarily a good measure of the usefulness of raising an issue somewhere. If a page is watched, it may get responses despite low traffic. And even if other posts don't receive much, it may be they were seen but ignored if the person felt they didn't matter. Unfortunately often the only way to know if you'll get a response is so actually try. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No disagreement with any of that. I wonder if there's a way to make that more explicit for newcomers, though? When a newbie sees something that needs correction or clarification, what have we done to tell them that the talk page is the place to go? As far as I can tell, nothing at all. Matt Deres (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Travel and other desks

The main RD page WP:RD links to 7 desks hosted on Misplaced Pages and one, called Travel, hosted on Wikivoyage (where it is actually called the "Tourist office").

Now, WP:RD asks people to "choose a category" when posting a question, and if the same question is posted to multiple Misplaced Pages desks, people will ask the poster not to do that, and perhaps plant links so that discussion takes place in one place. But today there was a question posted both to the Travel desk and the Miscellaneous desk. Should this be treated the same way, or is it different because Travel is not really a Misplaced Pages page, just linked from Misplaced Pages? I don't follow Wikivoyage and have no idea of what their guidelines, if any, might be. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's little more than a spam link, and its use should be discouraged. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to whoever set up the link from WP:RD alongside the Misplaced Pages RD links. Now, does someone have an answer about this policy question? --65.94.50.4 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have told them. More than once. They don't care. But you raise an important point. I don't think this is a "policy" issue, but we try to encourage posting at just one desk. But because that Wikivoyage thing is elsewhere, it's entirely possibly for someone to post both places and for very few observers to take note of it. On the other hand, there's no real harm - it's just redundancy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy is the greatest evil of our times. -- Jack of Oz 05:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You can say that again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this, but it seems like a useful resource. We might want to more tightly integrate Wikiversity this way also. As for policies about duplicated questions and such, it's not a big deal to me. If it turns out to be a problem you can write something up about it, somewhere, but meanwhile it's a small detail. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to other projects were discussed and quashed. This deal is strictly about spamming that one item to the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• i am almost certain this has been discussed within the last year or so. I'd search the archives. I had no personal opinion, although I could contribute some advice on places to visit in NYC and travel from Boston to Washingto DC. In any case, those who have proposals should probably research what was discussed last time. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Brain_damage

I hatted this question because it explicitly asks for medical diagnosis and advice on the OP's own reported symptoms. Not only did we then get a response suggestion that the OP sounds totally crazy, and suggestion from another that PTSD, voodoo, or a demonic curse might be relevant, while actual damage by a non-blinding image is unheard of. The latter is of course false, given it is known certain flashing images can induce epilepsy, serious and potentially fatal disease. It seems bad enough when people give reasonable advice which might mislead the OP into a false sense of security, but when we get insulting, ridiculous and false answers it shows a very good rationale for the prhibition. Hence I have extended the hat, and suggest that we simply delete the question entirely, with a polite note on the OP's talk page explaining why. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see this as a question of the "is a boa constrictor poisonous?" variety that does not require individualized diagnosis. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This snake didn't have a rattle either: Missouri man dies after being bitten by copperhead snake. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is the prescribed response, true. If the OP were to re-ask the question without describing his reaction to the picture, I assume it would be OK? Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the OP had asked the question in general, we'd be okay. At this point, I'd look at it as, "What would the wikifoundation say in court if this page were to advise the OP he had nothing to worry about, and he then died of a seizure?" And how would they explain a talk page discussion that discussed ways we could get around the policy, in order to answer his question? This question was rather clear cut, and I think my mistake was putting up a yellow flag to attract answers that are worse than saying, yes, it is serious, see your doctor. I should have deleted it outright.

I can say merely from personal experience that I knew an epileptic who found taking his medicine impared his thoughts. He suffocated during a seizure while off his meds against medical advice. And my inlaws just lost an uncle in his early 60's who was hit in the head coaching a football game in December. He felt fine, then lapsed into a coma two days later, and died right after Christmas. Even if the OP's pulling our leg the only thing we should tell him about his neurological symptoms is to consult with a specialist. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Legally, we have WP:MEDICAL, although I agree it would be bad publicity, and that we shouldn't give medical advice such as, "flashing images can induce epilepsy" on general humanitarian grounds. I would also agree that answering the second part of the OP's question ("hat might possible methods of healing be?") would count as "suggesting treatment", in violation of WP:RD/G/M, even though it would be treatment for a condition that isn't recognized by medical science. However, the first part of the question ("Is it possible to cause brain damage by looking at an image?") is (IMO) legitimate. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's say my hypothetical case went forward. If I were sitting on a jury, I'd find for the defendant. But If I were the defendant's lawyer, I'd have the wikifoundation project-ban anyone involved and have anything like the ref desks taken down permanently. I think our caution is a small price to pay, even if, frankly, I may sympathize with the troll and boa theories. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the OP had simply asked whether any type of picture can cause "brain damage", it might have been answerable. The rest of it goes on to ask for a personal medical diagnosis, which no one here is qualified to provide. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This has come up many times before. At the very least, if people are keen to help, and regardless of whether they hat the question or not, please start by posting a link to WP:MEDICAL and asking other responders to please only provide information and articles. Emphasise if you like that we are not doctors, and are not qualified to give advice. Please don't tell us about the legal situation in threads like the current one (this applies especially to @Medeis: above) - we don't need to know what you would say to a defendant; Wikimedia has its own lawyers, and they are perfectly capable of intervening if they see the need. You can also add a boilerplate warning after the question, such as the two on my user page. Please also read Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice - I know that article contains my own edits, but this was after much discussion, and was an attempt to find a middle ground. @Tevildo:: deletion is not the prescribed response, and to the best of my knowledge never has been - it has always been that we may remove the question. Here I see no need to hat, and very few people have shown by their actions that they have a particular desire to hat/ remove questions. It is certainly not a mainstream concern. IBE (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifically on the RD guidelines, (unconditional) deletion was prescribed until IBE's edit of 30 April 2014 (diff). Perhaps we should consider going back to this earlier longstanding policy. Tevildo (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We also have several templates in the {{HD}} series, including medical, veterinary, legal and financial. --  Gadget850 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to you @Tevildo: for my mistake, which was certainly careless of me. As for the change itself, it was the result of a protracted discussion, and I announced it on the talk page here () and there (see Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice specifically "suggested changes #1 and #2"). That was all based largely on this discussion, which, although appearing later than my announcement in the archives, took place earlier (according to my memory and the time stamp). I don't know why it's earlier in the archives, but it was a response to the thread below it. When I searched the archives, I could find no real debate around the longstanding policy (as I noted on the talk page, ), which was causing friction. If people want to start up the discussion again, that's your decision. At any rate, when hatting, at least please put the disclaimer there, since that appears to come from higher up (eg. I can't edit it, although I don't know who can). So if you want to indemnify Wikimedia, please folks at least start remembering this step, the disclaimer. But once again, my apologies for my carelessness. IBE (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the hatting/whatever. I probably should edit:not have replied or at least extended the hat but I just thought it a little pointless people were asking the OP to provide the image when a link had already been provided. While I understood people may not be willing or able to use Tor for whatever reason, I suspect and a quick check confirmed that Tor proxies did work. I didn't think providing the links was in itself a problem although I did suspect and was proven correct that people may comment on them. The image did establish one thing (and this was the main reason I initially looked on Tor), it was apparently more or less what the OP described (well the sort of image, not the alleged effects), as I was also wondering whether the OP was trolling and the image was some sort of shock image. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll just say that if a person asked whether it was possible for looking at a picture to cause brain damage, with no further details, I would have no problem answering. But when a person gives a link to a particular picture and says that they think looking at it damaged their brain, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

a judgmental and not on topic answer

here: ]

My question was perfectly reasonable, and had concrete answers, that could be and were provided with references. I don't see the point of judging me and a supposed tendency of mine to cheat people. That was not my intention.--Noopolo (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That often seems like User μηδείς's primary mode of participation, as has been discussed here often. He or she is apparently immune to all criticism. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thus spake the drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The date of that IP's appearance is an extremely suspicious coincidence (see his edit history), and the focus of his edits since then as well. Given he doesn't actually contribute here, the fact that he follows my edits in order to comment on them is very interesting indeed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The "date of that IP's appearance" is completely innocent. That is when my employer changed offices. (As indicated in the first edit by that IP.)

Sometimes I forget to log in. :shrug:

With enough effort, you could find another occasionally used IP, critical of Medeis's refdesk behavior, that stopped being used on that same date. APL (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're discussing her, don't you think it might be a good idea to inform @Medeis: even if the conversation in that topic became less than agreeable? It could also be taken to User_talk:Medeis before making it more public. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 14 Tevet 5775 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the user's edit history, a newbie who comes immediately to the ref desk to ask a personal question, I suspect he's a troll or a blocked user. When someone asks "If I claim something has a 90% chance of happening the next day can I be proven wrong?" I suspect he's asking about deception or covering his behind, not about probability in the abstract. Since most objective probability claims in everyday real life deal with the weather, I did give some information on that. But I also pointed out the obvious, that the OP's asking whether he can be proven wrong is not exactly a request for references, and that he should ask the people who know him best. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, in general, one should assume good faith of a new editor. I will comment that only in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries do most objective probability claims have to do with the weather. Historically most objective probability claims have been much more objective. With weather forecats, there isn't really an a priori probability, only a probability that has been computed a posteriori from previous weather. The history of probability theory is that it was originally developed by Pascal and Fermat and had to do with gambling, where there really is an a priori probaility based on the assumption that the dice or coin or shuffle is honest. On the other hand, User:Noopolo, you did ask a strange question, and nearly all of your edits are at the Reference Desk. Both Noopolo and Medeis would be well advised to calm down. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any lack of calmness from Noopolo, and neither does it matter if someone only edits the ref desk. I do the same, because I've tried mainspace, and it's lonely and intellectually dead for me (it would improve if I had the time to focus my energies, I know, but I don't). The question, I feel, was quirky more than strange. But I should add certain people have tried dealing with various issues concerning @Medeis: in the past, and it must be said that this is the calmer version of someone who appears frequently on these pages, and is named or involved far too often in controversial discussions. IBE (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The OP should feel free to hat my comment. I chose my words carefully and stand behind them. But if an analysis of gambling odds is what he wanted (that's not what he asked) thine I am fine with it. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The question as stated really has no valid answer, because it lacks sufficient information or context. It's kind of like writing, "This statement is false" or saying, "Everything I say is a lie." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, the latter are examples of antinomies, the question certainly isn't such. Moreover, I've thought about this exact question before, idly, while driving to work. If someone makes a probability claim about a single event, does it mean anything? It depends a lot on what exactly "single" and "event" mean - if we are in a bar and I say, "There is a 90% chance someone will walk in the door and order a Bud Light.", is that meaningful? On the one hand, we can talk about what has happened in the past - on the other hand, whatever the outcome, I can equally claim that I was accurate, you have nothing to dispute that. That's intriguing to think about, I don't see why it is a bad question to ponder, or to ask. Granted, the op didn't phrase it the best - but, I don't think it's nebulous.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bud Light question is not meaningful, as you say. There has to be a context. 90 percent probability of what? The actual question part was "Can I proven right or wrong?" The answer, without context, is a simple "No." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So by this side discussion you've both just proven that the question was a reasonable one! Just because a question has no reasonable answer does not necessarily prove that the question was not meaningful: the OP, or anyone else reading, can learn a lot here. (I'm tempted to reverse normal practice and copy this part of the discussion from the talk page back to the Science desk, since it's not metadiscussion, it's perfectly on topic.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what I was hoping this would demonstrate - please feel free to copy this back out to the main page, you may edit things around however is best for the sake of flow (as pertains to what I said, I can't speak for BBB). I'd do it myself, but, given that it is, somewhat, a disagreement involving me, I'd feel awkward to take mine and BBB's over on my own (but, if you'd like to, I'd fully endorse it, and think it would be a useful addition).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How did the question part simultaenously haven no valid answer, and also have a simple no as the answer? Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer to "Can I be proven wrong?" is "No." The answer to "Can I be proven right?" is "No." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So again, "How did the question part simultaenously haven no valid answer, and also have a simple no as the answer?" If you're now saying the answer to the question is a simple, or not so simple, no, that's fine, but that wasn't what you original said. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's awfully glib, you haven't provided any reason that the assertion "There is a 90% chance a man will walk in the door in the next five minutes" is meaningless, you are asserting that it is, that's not really convincing. Especially since the whole point is that if it isn't meaningful, then why not? The op appears to be asking a question along these lines -- and since people make statements like these all the time, it is interesting to consider them; especially since they are not talking in the strict sense of mathematical probability. Moreover, if I said, "Tonight at work will probably be busy", this would communicate something, so does the someone walking in the door - if that something is factual, if it means something, if it can be established, etc. are all interesting questions. --By the way, your objection isn't even one of the salient ones, or even much of one, the 90% is firmly attached to something - "There is a 90% chance a man walks in the door" appears, prima facie, just as sane as "There is a 90% chance of rain", surely you wouldn't say the latter doesn't specify "90% of what", why the former? tl;dr: you're repeating yourself sans argument or reasonable objection - and, at any rate, there's obviously, at least, a little meat to this topic, so the question isn't just shallow meaningless fluff.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you say there's a 90 percent chance of rain, what you're actually saying (assuming you know what you're talking about) is that the current weather conditions produce rain 9 out of 10 times, historically. The doorway idea is a bit weird. Unless the establishment is permanently out of business, there is a 100 percent chance someone will walk through the door eventually. The statement "It will probably be busy", as with a weather forecast, is likewise based on experience. The question, "Can I be proven wrong?" is meaningless without a similar type of context. As to what the OP "appears" to be asking, that's assuming facts not in evidence. All we know for sure is what he asked - and without context it's not possible to prove right or wrong. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If I say "I wish someone would walk in the door", or something to that effect, I'm not meaning at any point in the eternity of the future, that's not the common use of time in language - if I said "I wish I could find a job", you wouldn't assure me that I have forty years left alive, so I'm sure to find one, would you? (and the response, above, says "five minutes" the second time) You're also making something of a category mistake with your reasoning, or your very much a verificationist: if I say "Me and George Washington would have made good friends.", I have no way to evidence it, nonetheless, it is a meaningful statement -- and the question of evidencing and its relation to meaningfulness is exactly what is in question. In short, you are assuming the answer, then repeating that answer back as evidence of its correctness - you can't do that (and, that we can have this debate, despite your glibness, indicates it is something worth asking). Finally, you're, what, insisting we can't reasonably interpret questions, we have to go with what is written, and only that? Let's just close up shop, then, because 85% of what is asked here is just gibberish, by that standard. --Also, it is not obviously so that you need to know what you're talking about to state there is a 90% chance of rain, you're, again, assuming your conclusion, then using it to prove it...stop that.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The OP seems entirely uninterested. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP and WP:DOB violations by supercentenarian group

We have ongoing disruption by a user or user asking for information on private people. Even if we had some resource better than google, which these question posers can access themselves, WP:BLP says there is a presumption of privacy in regard to non-notable private people, and WP:DOB specifically prohibits us giving the full names and birthdates of private individuals. Hence I have hatted and redacted this edit giving name and DOB and asking if the private subject is still alive.

I suggest we adopt a policy of immediately deleting such questions, with a warning left on the user's talk page. We might also should add a line to the page header guidelines along the lines that We do not provide information about private individuals per WP:BLP policy, and such questions will be removed. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I googled the guy's name and it's true there are newspaper articles about him, the last one being about a year ago. It seems the OP could take a less-public approach to finding out this info. For what it's worth, I looked in Findagrave.com and he's not there. That doesn't prove he's still alive. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you chill out. OP is asking about someone who is notable for being old, and has many, many news blurbs written. These contain DOB and full name, and I see nothing wrong with allowing referenced answers to this question. This question is not disruptive, I see your hatting of this question as being the disruptive action. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have an article on the guy, and he's not mentioned in secondary sources. WP:DOB is quite explicit about this. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can find only one source that mentions the redacted material, a local news broadcast with transcript. Policy says: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." ..."Many Misplaced Pages articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." ..."BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts." μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How are you searching? I get dozens of news stories by searching the guy's name. His feel-good story was picked up by Huffington Post, USA today, several radio stations, telegraph post, and many other reputable news outlets. He gave a few video interviews, and his DOB is mentioned in a few places. He gave his name to news sources, so that they could write about how he walks at the mall at age 103/4. It is perfectly reasonable for us to post links to these news sources or anything that might confirm he was alive this week. I do hope you'll let this issue drop. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How many of these are stories picked up from one outlet? HuffPo and USAToday are aggregators. Publish the diffs then, and create an article, SM. You won't hear a peep from me then. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree - restored year of birth and name.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "identity theft" is a way for bankers to convert something stupid they do (falling victim to fraud) into someone else's error, crime, responsibility (failing to keep when you held your birthday party a secret). Now some may say that, however stupid this PR campaign may be, that the individual is still wisest to try to hold back information and avoid being made a victim of by the bankers and credit report racketeers (who would say they it isn't really them making a victim of the person, but the fraudster who defrauded them, even though they are the ones responsible for any effect their victim notices!) Presumably in 1909 the man's mother didn't know to keep his birth or the name she gave him a secret, and perhaps things will be that way again; I'd guess that between 4 and 6 shootings/bombings/abnormal plane landings by people irate with the financial industry, and "identity theft" would be mentioned about as often as the idea of basing some U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. It's up to the voters.

But as Wikipedians we have neither a self interest reason to keep the information private 'just in case', nor any moral obligation to participate in the bankers' charade, which ought to leave us free to discuss as we wish. Now you can say that some people have enacted the policy anyway, but on the basis of the above I would suggest that it can only be followed in letter, not in spirit, since its spirit is defective. The letter is that it talks about excluding this information from articles. It does not say that you can't discuss a birthday, or that it has to be redacted from a talk page. People should feel free to find and cite their sources. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that if these people are notable enough to be talked about in the encyclopedia, and if their notability is solely because of their ages, then it's ridiculous not to mention their ages in our article (and by extension, here). To the contrary, it would be quite wrong to say "John Doe is the oldest man in Transylvania" - and not provide verification of that fact with a WP:RS - which gives the year of his birth. Now, the slightly trickier thing is whether the entire date of birth is needed. It would be nice to be able to say that we don't need to mention the month and day (which is where the concerns over identity-theft exposure comes from)...but it's often the case that someone claims to be the oldest by a matter of months compared to their nearest rival for that title - so I could see where the entire birth date is needed for the article to make sense. At any rate, our guidelines are really clear on this - "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. " - so there you go. The only remaining debate is whether the source we reference for their DoB is "widely published in reliable sources" - that might be a high bar to meet in this case, but when you consider the get out clause "sources linked to the subject..." and "reasonably inferred" - then any local newspaper article where the DoB is mentioned and the person is interviewed or photographed carries the strong implication that they're OK with their DOB being mentioned. And lets face it, anyone who seriously intends to perpetrate identity-theft is going to be able to use a Google search on the person's name to find out more about their victim. It's not like we're publishing an otherwise unobtainable piece of information. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? We have no such article. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians from the United States comes to mind, but it has a cutoff at 110 years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SteveBaker: for restoring some sanity to this. I couldn't agree more. IBE (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How to Encourage a Regular Reference Desk Contributor to Stop Contributing?

Hi. Last year I made a few contributions to Reference Desk answers, but grew discouraged by the poor quality of some editors' contributions. I've tried to make a few contributions this year, but have again been struck by the poor quality of some people's answers to legitimate questions. This is not a criticism aimed at people who have answered questions to the best of their ability but have later been corrected by other editors with greater expertise in the relevant subject. Rather, I am concerned about editors who have impugned the motives of, or been needlessly judgmental of, legitimate questioners, and those editors who use Reference Desk answers as opportunities to push particular points of view (often those of a tiny minority of professionals in a particular subject), give deliberately false answers, provide arguments from religion or other unhelpful sources, or engage in fatuous banter or misguided attempts at humour. I have the impression that the great majority of contributors to the Reference Desk do their best to provide a useful and timely service to our readers, but I am unhappy that there are a small number of less helpful contributors.

My question is simple: is there any way of reducing the participation of unhelpful editors in the activities of the Reference Desk?

RomanSpa (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Many people have made similar observations in the past about certain unhelpful editors. To take this further, though, you would need to start a thread on this page stating which particular editor(s) you have in mind, and – this is very important – give diffs of edits they have made which you think were unhelpful. The community might then take some action regarding those editors' editing privileges (although I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you). --Viennese Waltz 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no way to force someone to back down short of banning or topic banning. The official channels of banning someone take a lot of effort and documentation, enough to easily convince a disinterested party. Often, problem editing stops just short of bannable offense, and the charges just breed ill will. We can ask a user to change his tune, but that is not usually effective unless it is done with great tact and compassion.

Of course specific bad behavior (e.g. WP:SOAP, WP:BITE, etc.) can be chastised, as long as it is WP:CIVIL. Some people here think that chastisement should always happen on a user's talk page, but I for one see the value in an occasional public upbraiding in this space: it lets everyone know that the offender has done something that is not appreciated, and gives others a chance to agree with the chastisement or defend the user in question.

I believe the best way to counteract unhelpful users is to recruit more good respondents. Cream rises, chaff blows away, etc. So please stick around, and don't let a few annoyances drive you away. Also, we should all encourage a few of our knowledgeable friends and associates to help out here as well :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that that isn't true. The people with the most time and energy to dedicate to RD stick around, whether or not their responses are helpful. The real problem is that the requirement to be 'civil' means that people with less time and energy are required to jump through many hoops while remaining calm in the face of provocation, while the original offender need only say 'I reject these charges' and go back to wasting everyone's time on RD. A moderation system where discussions were more actively policed would improve matters, but it would be more labour-intensive and more of a shift from WP's current setup. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant more on an individual thread basis - the OP, readers, and responders will all get to assess what's good on their own. You're right about the way it can go in general, and bad responders can hang around while good ones leave. You're also right about there being potential technical solutions, but IMO slashdot/reddit style moderation is't the WP way. I disagree that being civil takes any more time than being a jerk, though it is often less satisfying :) Interestingly enough, Medeis also wants more policing (see below) but I think we need less wikicops around here, not more. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• First, strongly enforce our question criteria and immediately delete requests for opinion, prediction, loaded questions, and questions beginning with "Why do the Jews...?" or "I'm trying to convince my idiot friend.. But he's dumb" that invite unserious responses. Allow only specific requests for references and articles, or educated identifications/translations that can be backed up with sources.
  

Second, pay contributors. What you get for free is worth what you pay for it.

Third, don't assume minority opinions are inherently wrong. I could quote Ayn Rand's

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth.

but it's a minority opinion.

Fourth, contribute your own time to answering questions, rather than complaining here about answers you don't like, or only showing up to complain, complaining you don't have enough time to do more than that.

μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

1. It's not the questions - it's the answers that matter here.
2. Your (well known) deletionist approach fails because nobody agrees on the criteria for deletion...I disagree with almost everything you hat or delete.
3. Paying people to reply would bring in yet more people wanting to earn a buck by posting "Me too!" answers and other crap. It wouldn't in any way help us to decide who is allowed to answer and who isn't. The good respondents are already happy to work for $0...that's not the problem we're trying to address here. But in any case, Misplaced Pages wouldn't remotely consider money changing hands. So this is a totally crap suggestion.
4. Eeek! Quoting Ayn Rand?!? Really? Wow. How the heck could she possibly know how the first man to create fire was treated? I can come up which HUNDREDS of cases where someone came up with something great and was immediately lauded for their invention. Bullshit!
5. I agree - spend more time providing good answers would be a good thing. However, weeding out the crap also helps. Our OP in this case wishes to help out with good answers, but is put off by the poor ones - and I have to agree. I'd far prefer to contribute to a prestigious, well respected reference desk than to try to squeeze in a good answer amongst junk. That's why I started contributing here rather than any of the other places where such activities are performed - and it's why I come here now to support the idea of trying to weed out the junk.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A moderation system would be awesome...but hard to implement within the structure of MediaWiki...I can't see it happening, for purely technical reasons, if not for any other. Absent that kind of control, we can eliminate people who frequently break Misplaced Pages guidelines - but simply posting poor quality answers hardly extends to that. Sometimes these people will slip up badly enough to actually break some rules - and then we can possibly nail them - but it's tough, and the WIkipedia justice league tends to err on the side of leniency and forgiveness...which is probably a good thing.

The problem is when someone posts an almost unending torrent of poor answers, weak jokes, off-topic asides and who-knows-what. These people richly deserve to be kicked out of here because they are truly a waste of electrons...but there is no mechanism for that.

That said, we are empowered to write guidelines of our own - and I suppose we could craft some sort of guideline that would promote the status of these kinds of useless WP:RD posts to "disruption"...and having so defined it, cause persistently useless people to be booted off under the "disruptive editing" rules. That might actually stick because that Misplaced Pages guideline is intended to be applied only to persistently annoying people.

I suppose we might write: "Posting jokes, asides and off-topic comments before a full answer to the question has been provided is considered disruptive to the reference desks. Denigrating the original poster is always considered disruptive."....now you can line up all of the cases where these 'certain users' have violated this principle, point out that this represents a pattern of disruption to the smooth operation of the reference desks - and if they persist, you'd have a strong case for a violation of WP:DISRUPT and now an Admin can topic-ban them.

This kind of special rule is generally considered acceptable for WikiProjects - and I think of the WP:RD as something akin to those.

Merely posting very poor answers is harder to deal with.

But it's essential that we work this such that a pattern of poor responses is the key here - we shouldn't try to boot someone out for a single poor answer or misplaced joke. We all have bad days!

SteveBaker (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish there was a technical solution like up/down votes. Since the RefDesk was created, other question/answer sites have risen up and proven much more useful and with a much better signal to noise ratio. They've proven that we could do better. A lot better.

Without exception, the secret of those sites seems to be allowing readers to curate the content. Not only does it help the best stuff "float to the top", it allows people to express that an answer is wrong without having to argue.

Human nature being what it is, I don't think we can achieve the good results other sites have achieved in the free-for-all environment we have here, but I don't think that adding more human-enforced rules is the answer either. The rules we have now are applied differently by different people, and even then only when it suits them. And that's pretty much to be expected in any group of people. Especially volunteers.

All that said, I agree with Steve that I don't think a technical solution is easily possible with a MediaWiki page. :( APL (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If we were to adopt the tools of reddit/slashdot/stackexchange, then we would have left the Wiki way, in my opinion. For better or worse these desks are an outgrowth of the encyclopedia, and so we must use the same minimal technology and rely more on human discussion than other answer sites do. And if anyone thinks that community voting will certainly lead to better content, I suggest she has not spent enough time in the various dark corners of Reddit :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. A stackexchange-like system would absolutely be a departure from the Wiki Way. Although the ref-desk is kind of an oddity, it's always been at least a half-step away from the Wiki way.

I would argue that discussion and debate is useful for continual refinement of permanent content, but less optimal for providing timely and accurate answers and references. APL (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think SteveBaker's personal attack on me and his response: "Eeek!...Really?...Bullshit!" to my civil contribution is perhaps the most elegant example of what's wrong with this board. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are using the same definition of "personal attack" as the rest of us. He didn't say anything about you as a person, he expressed his opinion that your example was inapt. I suggest you grow some thicker skin, at least strong enough to withstand the barbs that you yourself give out with regularity :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Medeis has a history of seeing personal attacks when there were none. Personal opinion seems to be synonymous with personal attack to them. I agree that Steve's response was A) not an attack and B) a calm reply to the arguments that Medeis put forth. Dismas| 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) No. What is wrong with this board is the way contributors use it to bring their own personal obsessions into every thread. If you want to discuss Ayn Rand, start a Facebook page or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no personal attack there. Steve didn't agree with you, but that's allowed. APL (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, as others pointed out and hinted at: I don't think there is much more you can do other than lead by example (as corny as that sounds). Keep adding informed/researched/referenced replies, ignore the noise. If stuff gets removed or hatted, you are free to undo or unhat when you feel the censorship was overly ambitious (or just plain wrong). If you really want to get those banned who unfortunately do contribute a great deal to a continuous drone of unfriendliness, inanity, and unsolicited soapboxing, then you have to go to one of those dreadful boards (WP:AN, WP:ANI ... WP:RFC/U is marked as historical), and I don't think you will be successful. For example, though I really do empathize with your sentiment, there's no way I'm going to participate in any kind of discussion of that sort because I don't feel it deserves that kind of attention. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)