User talk:Kadiddlehopper

Howdy! My name is Clem.

Pneumonia vaccine question

If you are interested in the background discussion about removal of "medical advice" questions from the References Desks, or if you want to explain why you think your question should not have been removed, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. Gandalf61 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on the reference desk that:

Statistical information and not advice was requested by this question which makes the removal of this question highly suspicious as to the true purpose and intent of the science reference desk. I am very disappointed with the Wikipedia science reference desk for being unwilling to provide reference to statistical data for various medications such as side effects and/or number of deaths or other complications. In fact I have lost all confidence now as to the Wikipedia having any authoritative information to give versus pure speculation. Clem 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence, in fact, hits the nail dead on: Wikipedia, and especially the reference desk, does not, and cannot, provide authoritative information. All we've got is hearsay and pure speculation, which is less than helpful for determining whether you should be concerned about your reaction to the vaccine or not. Thus, after some serious debate, it has been agreed that we should not try answering questions like yours at all. The best we could possibly do for you would be to point you to other sources that might be more authoritative than we are (but even then, you shouldn't take our word for their authoritativeness); for that, you can check out our pneumonia article (but remember those disclaimers!), or try Google. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your original question ([1]) and the follow-up ([2]) were both seeking medical advice within the definitions that we use on Wikipedia. Your first post asked us to provide a diagnosis (confirmation that your symptoms were due to the vaccination that you received) and offer a prognosis (describe likely outcomes, and determine whether or not your symptoms were within the normal range of reactions to the vaccination). Your second post added a new symptom and sought similar information.

Determining whether or not your symptoms are a typical response to your vaccination – or even if they (all) are related to the vaccination that you received – is beyond the scope of the Reference Desk, and beyond the qualifications of the volunteers who answer questions there. We don't know anything about you, your health, or your medical history, and we can't remedy that because we're unable to perform a physical examination or a proper interview.

We're not witholding information out of spite or malice. Advising you to seek the advice of a qualified medical professional is the best way we know how to protect your health. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're perfectly clear - this is the question that was asked:

I've never heard of a pneumonia vaccine but I got one today. Are they supposed to swell up like I've been lifting weights all my life and burn like crazy plus make my arm and shoulder sore? I had a flu shot and it was pain free compared to this. Clem 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not statistical - it's a clear request for a diagnosis of a swelling following a medical procedure. Symptoms are given in detail and we're asked whether this is normal or not.

I'm the person who deleted the question - and I'd like to explain why I did it. The people who answer here are mostly amateur scientists - or at best, professional scientists working outside their own fields of study. We are VERY good at getting you good answers - it amazes me how this can happen. But Wikipedia is strongly anonymous - I use my real name for my handle (Or do I? You'll never know!) - but that's not common. If we had a bunch of qualified doctors here, you would have no way to know who the experts are and who are amateurs. For most things on Wikipedia this doesn't matter too much. If we say that an apple might blow up as a result of a nuclear splitting event (the last question I happened to answer) and I get it totally wrong (which definitely happens), no harm is done. But if someone says that such-and-such set of symptoms are not serious and they are - and as a result you fail to go to the doctor - then you might well die. If they say that symptoms that are completely harmless are potentially fatal then you might be unduly stressed and make a wasted (and in some places expensive) trip to the doctor for no good reason. We can't have that on our consciences...if someone died because of advice given here - the consequences for Wikipedia as a whole would be chilling...Furthermore, in most of the places where Wikipedia is read and written, it's illegal to practice medicine without a license. Whilst that doesn't stop a lot of people from answering questions - it really should. Anyway, we had a long debate about this a few years ago and decided that the best way to proceed was to simply disallow medical (and legal) questions and ask that people should neither ask nor reply to them. Recently, a lot of people (both questioners and respondants) have been violating that rule. I can understand that questioners are not likely to be familiar with our guidelines - so it's not surprising that we get a medical question somewhere on the reference desks at least once a day - but we have a serious issue with respondants replying to them when they should know better. Some respondants (unfortunately) tried to game the system. We had another L-O-N-G debate at the reference desk discussion forum and decided that the best approach for everyone's safety and peace of mind was to simply delete medical questions. So that's what I did. I make no apology - it's the right thing to do and it's not new policy - just a new way to implement that policy. I can quite understand why that should bother you - but that's how it has to be. However, this applies SOLELY to medical and legal questions - you can ask anything else you like and we'll do our best to answer you as ever. Furthermore - this restriction applies only to the reference desks. You can still find articles on medical subjects in the body of the encyclopedia where the information can be of a general nature and does not imply that we are listening to your symptoms and recommending a medical course of action - which is (and should be) illegal. SteveBaker 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That last bit is a legal statement. We're supposedly not allowed to say anything legal either, so you're breaking your own rules. I thought about adding a smiley, but that would have distracted from the fact that I'm being bloody serious. :) You also state that the questioneer should look elsewhere for an answer, and isn't that also medical advise? The very nature of the rule entails that we should not be allowed to discuss the rule, and that sort of thing sends shivers down my spine. Feel free to tell someone to go see a doctor, but then let others put in their bit too. Don't assume readers to be stupid. That medical questions are best answered by a doctor is blatantly obvious, but additional info from others (such as statistics or personal experience) can also help. And when you refer people to a doctor, then shouldn't you by the same reasoning point out that doctors make mistakes too? Because they do, and frighteningly often. When you make such a clear cut between doctors and other people you imply that doctors are know-alls, which is extremely misleading. And also a medical statement, which you yourself say you should not make. Stop breaking your own rules. :) DirkvdM 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not breaking any rules - this is not the reference desk, this is a users talk page and I can say what the hell I like here.
2. Your meta-arguments about giving advice about not giving advice being advice in themselves and failing to explain that doctors are fallible is in itself advice...those are all ridiculous arguments and I'm quite sure you know it. I don't need to debate them - you're clutching at straws. Our policy is to use that template to explain why a question has been deleted. I didn't write the template - it's a part of the guidelines.
3. I don't assume you are stupid (...although that last post is a little 'out there'...) - but I'm 100% certain that some stupid people ask questions on the desk - if you've been there for any amount of time you'll know that's true. Since we can't easily tell the smart ones from the stupid ones - and we certainly can't write guidelines that say "You can only answer medical questions from people with an IQ of 100 or higher" - we can't answer these questions safely.
4. The question quite clearly asked for medical advice in direct contravention of the clearly posted rules at the top of the page - so in accordance with Wikipedia reference desk guidelines I deleted it. I was 100% within my rights to do that - it was 100% wrong to ask such a question. If you can't understand such a simple thing then perhaps I should put you into the 'stupid' category.
5. This is no longer a matter for debate. We've had that debate (several times now and over several years) and the answer is always the same - the consensus is that questions that seek medical advice are not allowed on the reference desk.
6. I frankly don't give a damn what you think of the policy, it's the policy regardless. So get off your high horse - and consider apologizing to me, who only followed the establish guidelines and did what the community asks of me.

Also, everyone should stop posting further inflammatory debate about this to the main body of the reference desk. That kind of thing belongs here, on my talk page or on the reference desk talk page - but never in the main space of the desk. Thanks. SteveBaker 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, I just checked with several doctors, three lawyers and a couple of judges and they all say that there are many questions they get which they only have a partial answer for or no information about at all and must therefore use their professional judgment and experience to provide an answer so that the right way to handle either a legal or to a medical question is to include a clear and simple disclaimer whether you are otherwise qualified to provide an answer or not.

In other words it is far better not to delete a question but rather to answer it to the best of your ability and then add a disclaimer even if you are sure your answer is one hundred percent provable by the facts. Otherwise you should simply leave the question alone and not answer it at all and instead remove the answers which do not include a disclaimer or may be contrary to facts.

Also, no one can be held responsible for providing an answer to a legal or to a medical question, even if a disclaimer is not attached, in any scenario where the answer or "advice" is free of financial charge and you are not intentionally misrepresenting yourself or the facts. In other words, unless you require something of value in exchange for your answer or "advice" you can not be held responsible for what your answer is.

This is of course not the case when questioned by a police officer or other official or officer of the court who represent the State and are seeking an answer on the State's behalf. If you choose to answer their questions then you are obligated by law to tell them the truth although you are likewise permitted to withhold an answer or to provide a disclaimer if you do not. Clem 03:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

I could not resist adding some more! Clio the Muse 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The poor Dalai. The mean Communists! How can we ever turn things around? (Smiley goes here). Clem 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk

Hi, it is normal practice on the ref desks to remove email addresses or phone numbers, in line with the instruction not to give them in the first place. I felt it would be polite to explain to the poster why I had done this. I also gave him a welcome message. Any answer will be posted on the desk, where all users can benefit. Again, this is normal practice. Please could you also sign your posts? It helps all users to keep track of who said what, and when. Thanks. DuncanHill 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would but this unnecessary annoyance has been replaced by a bot. Few, if any, other sites require manual signing. Also you need to delete the whole entry, then give the reason to the poster so he can repost without the contact info. Otherwise he may not repost and the rest of us are then left in a quandary over his original post not providing an alternate method of contact. Also since the Wikipedia provides for email contact of all users if they add it to their preferences your job is to inform them of this instead of PLAYING GOD.

Signing is very easy, just type ~~~~ or click the signature box above the edit box. If the OP comes back and sees his post has dissappeared he may give up, as it is if he comes back he will see what has been done as well as an explanation. Wikipedia does indeed provide an email option for registered users, but it doesn't actually give out the email address when you use it. An email address posted on the ref desk can easily be picked up by a spam bot. I do not feel that I was playing god, rather I was doing what a lot of other ref desk regulars do, and protecting a new user while also applying the ref desk rule about not posting email addresses or telephone numbers. DuncanHill 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Please take note that the Reference Desk is for asking factual questions, not making statements about your opinion of various celebrities. -- kainaw™ 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... Shall I add the question mark or can you simply imagine one in your sympathetic brain?

Blocked for a week

I'm blocking you from editing for a week due to this comment. Personal attacks are not allowed here, and comparing someone to Nazism just because you don't like their views is totally out of order. I've also removed your comment from the USA PATRIOT Act talk page. Personal attacks of this nature aren't wanted, needed or encouraged on this project. If you feel that you cannot contribute to this project without such comments, please consider whether Wikipedia is the place for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When someone hides an item owned by someone else it may not be considered theft in certain jurisdictions such that when the owner catches that person and calls that person a thief the comment is considered a personal attack. In other places where depriving the rightful owner of his rightful entitlement and enjoyment of his possession is considered theft and the thief is caught and called a thief, it is not considered a personal attack but rather a statement of fact. See: To call a spade a spade. Such action in this case suggests that not only is the jurisdiction corrupt but that the thief and his lawyer are definitely in cahoots and should be known by the same name.