Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Personal disagreement 2

IT'S is the contraction of IT IS
I object to this deletion of my post which in accordance with Talk page guidelines asked: Did you mean to post "in its neck" instead of "in it is neck" ?. The relevant guideline says ''Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say .'' (my underlining)

Despite knowing that in English IT'S is the contraction of IT IS, one editor continually abuses the language by posting such nonsense as:

'...the blood has to be pumped up to it is head '...when it is head low to the ground '...the veins and arteries of it is neck '...If a giraffe kept it is head down 

'...blood vessels in it is neck '

The above are not typos, they are deliberate and consistent. The writer is capable of writing correctly but chooses not to. This is the place to tell SteveBaker that it is not ok to use Wikipedia as a platform for launching one's crazy idea for "improving" English. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? How do you know it's (yes "it's") deliberate? It's a mistake I often make, when I see it I correct my post, when I don't, I don't. Usually (if not virtually always), a sentence's context will unambiguously resist its mistyped "its". I probably wouldn't have removed your lesson in orthography, but I would have tried my best to ignore it (and I probably would have had to suppress some irritation while doing so). Nevertheless, you've been asked by a number of editors to kick your habit of asking whether user:X actually meant "owlnjskleää" instead of "owlnsjkleaä" when there was no reasonable way of misinterpreting the text. Okay so this (talkpage) is the place to tell him. The desks certainly aren't. Your complaint surprises me. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he's deliberately doing it to annoy you, because you make such an issue out of it. And its apparently worked (hence this thread). I personally don't care as the meaning of all his posts comes across clearly regardless of the typo. It's not disruptive, unless you cause disruption over it. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cuddlyable, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a POINT. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve Baker is not on a crazy crusade; you are.
 * Steve Baker is not "abusing" the English language. You, on the other hand, are abusing both this talk page and our patience. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm. Given that I explicitly asked Cuddlyable to stop his grammar crusade just a few hours ago  (in accordance with the extensive guidance he has been given on this page in recent weeks), this decision to further ratchet up his indignation is troubling.  Cuddlyable has a history of conflict with SteveBaker; his decision to post a needling criticism of a tiny typo exemplifies poor judgement at best, and evinces deliberate disruption at worst.
 * Cuddlyable's comment didn't improve on the posted responses or answer any questions (least of all the original poster's), so it didn't serve to advance the purpose of the Reference Desks. It was a snide and childish attack on another volunteer at the Desk, making this a less pleasant and less welcome place &mdash; we're supposed to be helpful.  At this point, Cuddlyable seems far more interested in making a point than in being helpful and constructive.  Discussion has not visibly improved Cuddlyable's conduct, and he prefers to cloak his unpleasant nitpicking in a close reading of a behaviour guideline (which ought to be interpreted with care and common sense).  If Cuddlyable requires explicit rules codifying acceptable behaviour, I believe that this can be straightforwardly addressed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find funny that you overreact like this when Cuddlyable3 is simply right. Reference Desk replies aren't Youtube comments and therefore correct grammar and spelling should be a must. I doubt that it is just a "tiny typo" since SteveBaker does that constantly. I have also corrected many of his it's and who's and it does get annoying after a while - the same mistakes over and over again. I find it hard to believe that someone who types such extensive replies can't understand the difference between its and it's = it is when very young foreign students of English have no problem with that, so maybe 82.44.55.25 was right when he suggested that SteveBaker does that deliberately. --Belchman (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 editing restriction
I propose the following restriction.


 * Cuddlyable3 is hereby restricted from posting questions or comments to the Wikipedia Reference Desk questioning, addressing, or otherwise discussing the spelling or grammar of other editors. (The sole exception is in response to questions directly seeking advice on these topics.)  Violations of this editing restriction may be reverted without discussion, and Cuddlyable3 may be blocked for up to forty-eight hours for each violation.  After the third violation, the maximum block length will escalate to two weeks.  This restriction will lapse six months after the last violation.


 * Support, as proposer. It's silly that matters have come to this, but mere stubbornness shouldn't earn a free pass to engage in unpleasant conduct toward one's fellows.  This is at least the third time we've had this discussion.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find that starting a poll to vote whether we should gag him or not (1.- Polling is not a substitute for discussion and 2.- He's right.) is simply beyond ridiculous. --Belchman (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 - That would be a very valid concern, which I would endorse entirely &mdash; except that we've had this discussion regarding this editor on this talk page at least twice before. 2 - That is both true and not terribly important. I don't think anyone – including SteveBaker – would dispute that his statement was grammatically incorrect.  Nevertheless, Cuddlyable's comment was snide (implying that there was some sort of confusion about what Steve could possibly have meant),  part of ongoing antagonism and grudge-holding (Cuddlyable and Steve have had previous...interactions, and Cuddlyable has engaged in disproportionately hostile behaviour), apparently crafted to be disruptive while wikilawyerly acceptable (per his comments on my talk page), and irrelevant to the function of the Reference Desk (Cuddlyable's comment did nothing to help to answer anyone's question). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reply basically sums up the whole discussion. You people are biased because you feel that your e-friend/legendary question-answerer SteveBaker is being attacked once again by a disruptive, evil quasi-troll called Cuddlyable3. Needless to say, that is a form of argumentum ad hominem. If someone who knew neither of them read this discussion, the verdict is obvious: The only person that is being disruptive in this particular case is SteveBaker with his deliberate and constant language mistakes, no matter how friends you are. --Belchman (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not friends with anyone here. I have never had a private conversation, on or off WP, with either SteveBaker or Cuddlyable3. Though I don't support the proposed restriction, I can understand where it's coming from, and it has nothing to do with your psychological evaluation of other people's motives. The verdict isn't obvious to me at all. Please don't speak for other people. Speak for yourself. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have replied just 6 minutes later; I advise you to take a little bit longer than that next time, basically because you have missed my point completely and have focused in a tiny detail. Also, it's very amusing that you're actually confirming my thoughts when you said "I can understand where it's coming from", basically admitting that you're not sticking to the events of this particular discussion. --Belchman (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I took some more time, but my reading of your post hasn't changed. If you wish to explain so even I can understand it, feel free to do so, but it's not that important. My understanding where it's coming from has to do with my personal experiences outside of Wikipedia. But I guess you're right that there is no place for that here. As I said I don't support the restriction, but that doesn't automatically make everyone with whom I disagree "wrong". Your mileage may vary. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I committed the deletion that triggered this discussion, and feel as though we may already have the tools needed to limit the disruption in a situation like this; if there is a consensus that deletion can be an appropriate response (with appropriate care and edit summary), then pedantry that doesn't clarify can simply be deleted. I realize that definitions are challenging, but we deal with such judgment calls all the time.  I do think that Cuddlyable3's edits are disruptive, so if pressed I'd endorse further restrictions (but I like using available tools when feasible).  -- Scray (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really think that correct spelling and grammar is 'pedantic' and 'disruptive' (especially when the same mistake is repeatedly made and, even worse, it is probably made deliberately) then you, sir, have a problem. --Belchman (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO correct spelling and grammar are not intrinsically pedantic; I think you'll find that I'm pretty careful with both in my WP edits (though none of us is perfect). In contrast, Cuddlyable3 seems focused on corrections of minute errors in spelling and grammar (where intended meaning is not in question), the content is not article space (where such corrections would be welcome by all), and (as others have pointed out) the user being corrected is known not to appreciate the correction on the RD.  That is pedantry (feel free to look up the word; I think the shoe fits).  The disruption part is manifest here and in past exchanges, and I am becoming convinced that the disruption is deliberate.  -- Scray (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely endorse your removal in this case, as this is a user with a history of problems in this area who has refused to take any guidance on board. There are two reasons why I proposed a specific, clearly-worded restriction applied to Cuddlyable.  The first is that previous advice and guidance from the community has fallen on deaf ears here, and he has indicated that he is responsive to clear, written direction; the clearly codified potential for enforcement by block means that he cannot claim surprise if ongoing disruptive behaviour eventually leads to exhaustion of community patience.  The second is that I don't really want to get into a situation where disingenuous or overzealous anti-pedants start making things unpleasant by jumping into aggressive deletions of posts by editors who are just having an 'off day' (I would suggest that you have a gift for understatement when you say, "definitions are challenging"), nor do I want the possibility of restricting Cuddlyable's irresponsible conduct torpedoed by fears that over-broad general restrictions might catch good-faith contributions by other editors.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Though I think deletions like mine provide another avenue for mitigating disruption. -- Scray (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I've remarked before I don't personally see anything wrong with CA offering grammar and spelling advice, particularly if it's done politely and there's reason to presume the person may not be aware they made a mistake (e.g. English isn't their first language) and may welcome such advice. Even more so if CA adds something to the discussion other then the advice. However I've remarked before I don't see CA's pointing out SB it's/its usage is helpful since SB has made it clear he doesn't care, so while it may benefit others who aren't aware, I don't think that's sufficient to warrant continual comments. Therefore if CA really continues to point out things where the person clearly doesn't care I would support a restriction. I would say if SB is purposely doing this to annoy CA or get a response, I don't consider this any better behaviour then CA's however we have no evidence he's doing that. Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I Support the idea of restriction, of course, but are such specific gag-orders kosher on Wikipedia? I'm not sure I've ever heard of them applied to anyone else. If this kind of thing is "done" then I absolutely support it.  C3 has proved that he's incapable of listening to reason. He (Or she? Whatever.) has been warned about this behavior on multiple occasions and the weight of consensus is always firmly against him. Yet still he persists.    He's worse than the guy who asked about planet colors. At least that guy's stubborn refusal to listen seemed to be based on an honest desire to use the refdesk to learn something.  C3 knows full well that we understand homonyms, he just persists on correcting us with the hope of irritating us until we comply with his petty grammar-related demands. APL (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: While I naturally assume this was intended as a joke, on the off chance it's not...  GROW UP!!! If CB3 corrects your spelling, and it bothers you that he corrects your spelling, learn to spell better.  To date, the times when he's corrected me it hasn't bothered me a bit.  if at some point it does bother me, I'll spell better or I'll tell him to f%ck off.  it's not a big issue either way.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point though Ludwigs2 is that C3 is not contributing to answering questions when they go off on a grammo-tangent. If they were consistently providing sourced answers to the OP and as an aside mentioning that such-and-such spelling was wrong, that would be one thing. Posting just to needle in some minor error is a whole different other. C3 is not showing collegial instinct to help out, (s)he is showing a tendency to nitpick in hopes of a fight. That behaviour does nothing to advance the aims of the RDs and actively obstructs the process of answering the original question. Franamax (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (After e/c with Franamax)
 * It's no joke. C3's smug "corrections" are intentional trolling. If I say "The Giraffe raises it's neck" and you say "Did you mean to post 'in its neck' instead of 'in it is neck'?"  You are not honestly asking a question and you are not helpfully clarifying the situation for confused onlookers, You're doing it only to get a rise out of people. It's no better than repeatedly asking questions about launching probes into Uranus to search for gaseous emissions, and a good deal less funny. APL (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and I will help out with the enforcement. This has gone on long enough. I'm mystified at what C3 is hoping to gain and rather suspect that they enjoy the cut-and-thrust of arguing it out. Falling back to specific wording of policy/guideline as a defence rather than using common sense, to me is a worrying sign. C3 is still free to post on individual user or IP talk pages to point out grammar/spelling errors (including SB's, SB can delete the posts) made elsewhere, but it seems clear that this constant pedantry is disruptive. APL, yes this is the "done thing" when we get to our wit's end Is that apostrophe wrong? Probably. - the community can form a consensus to enact sanctions to prevent disruption. Usually this is done at the incident noticeboard, in this case we are better served to form a consensus here and post to ANI as a confirmatory step. If C3 is not willing to alter their behaviour, then something needs to be done. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support "Cuddlyable's comment did nothing to help to answer anyone's question" nor did it serve any other useful purpose as far as I can see. (And see also this, which not only served no useful purpose but confused and offended the question-asker, too).  It would be nice if we all had perfect punctuation, spelling, grammar, rhetorical style, etc., all the time -- but none of us do, which can at times be annoying.  If an instance or set of instances becomes really annoying, then that meta-issue ought best be addressed directly with the user involved, and not in disruption of the actual topic being discussed.  If it is not a mere annoyance but actual disruption that is the problem, that should be dealt with as it is being dealt with here.  Therefore, I support.  Wikiscient  (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternative proposal - I come from a family that would freely point out grammar mistakes to each other and it would be appreciated. However, correcting the errors of strangers is extremely rude, in general, unless there's a real chance of a miscommunication. In light of that, I would like to go on record as saying that Cuddly is free to point out mistakes in my English usage at any time (though I reserve the right to dispute it if necessary, or to ignore it); and I propose this alternative restriction: Before he corrects a frequent ref desk editor's English usage, he should ask that user's permission. And he shouldn't comment at all on a casual reader's original post or followup unless there's a real chance that no one will understand the question (which is unlikely given that we speak English natively). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That will only work if the permission is to silently make edits to correct typogrammos, perhaps with notice on the user talk page. For another editor to invite comment on their grammar on a RD page itself is to invite personal commentary onto a putative encyclopedia page. We walk a fine line with deletion as it is when we put in our little jokes and small commentary. If Cuddlyable3 feels the need to comment on grammar, they can well do so one-to-one on the editor talk page so as not to disrupt the flow of the deaks. If that starts getting silly, then we or others can act on that too. The intent here is to curb disruption of the reference desks. Franamax (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should definitely ask permission on the user's talk page, not the ref desk; and under NO circumstances except policy violation (such as BLP breach) should he be messing with others' edits on the ref desk itself, nor should he bring it up there UNLESS there is a serious risk of miscommunication (and "its" vs. "it's" ain't it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (and I may misunderstand, so bear with me) this proposal seems unworkable. Would the permission be always-prominent on the "permitting" editor's Talk page?  If not, how would other editors, attempting to enforce this ban, determine whether permission has been granted?  I think your alternative proposal does reflect Cuddlyable3's current freedom to post suggestions for grammatical improvements on others' talk pages while respecting WP guidance (and good sense).  At this point, I think Cuddlyable3 has lost the privilege of reposting with grammar and spelling corrections on the RD, for a time to be determined by consensus.  -- Scray (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not simply tell him to make his copy-edit corrections on the user's talk page? Then, it doesn't clutter up the RD with posts that clearly annoy many users.  It seems absurd to put a message on the user's talk page asking to make a spelling correction and then posting that spelling correction on the RD. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The reference desk's purpose is answering questions, not copy-editing.  People who post a question are doing so because they want an answer... if they want copyediting suggestions, they will say so clearly.  There's no need to respond to a question with anything that isn't a useful answer to that question.  To do so is just simple rudeness, like correcting the table manners of your dinner guests.  I have several degrees in English, and definitely know how to use an apostrophe, but I've never commented on a questioner's spelling or grammar unless it was bad enough that I needed help in understanding the question.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really have "several degrees in English" and still cannot understand why we should not use "Youtube-comments English" (I seriously doubt that atrocities such as *definately or *u instead of you cause any real misunderstanding) here, I'm afraid I'll have to avoid making public my opinion about you. --Belchman (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If he has several degrees in English, it means he likely has a good command of what correct English is. But that's a completely different question from whether "correct English" is or ought to be mandatory in a particular situation.  Up above you said, "Reference Desk replies aren't Youtube comments and therefore correct grammar and spelling should be a must", and I have to say, your conclusion does not follow.  It has the same logical form as "Two plus three does not equal forty-seven, and therefore the earth is flat." —Steve Summit (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replace that "aren't Youtube comments" with "shouldn't be informal uneducated opinions" if you don't understand my metaphor. --Belchman (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand it, all right; I just don't agree with it. But my analogy was flawed, too.  Here's a better one, if you don't understand it.  Your earlier statement has the same logical form as "The library is not the privacy of one's home.  Therefore wearing the burqa is a must." —Steve Summit (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose this massive over-reaction and candidate for WP:LAME. Agree with Ludwigs2. All parties on both sides of this absurd dispute should put down the flaming torches and pitchforks and go do something useful instead. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal #2 if alternative #1 seems too complicated, take this more straighforward and uniform approach: If Cuddly or anyone else makes rude comments about the English usage of your edits, like the ones he did which triggered this discussion, delete them without comment. And if he does likewise with an OP, any editor may delete them unless his comments actually contain an answer to the OP's question. Do that a few times, and maybe he'll get the point and stop doing it. I know I often cringe when I see some of the horrible wording of questions and comments, but I almost always understand what they're trying to say, and that's all that matters at the ref desk. English usage pedantry is perfectly fine in article writing. In the ref desk it's generally not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)