# Don't answer my questions; I want natives' answers



## Englishmypassion

Hello All,
Namaskar.
What do you do when you, as a non-native English speaker, receive PMs saying "Don't answer my questions/Don't post in my threads; I want native English speakers' answers"? Well, I'm not asking for no reason -- have you also received such personal messages? I'll tell you the names if you/moderators are interested and/or after _you_ name some.

I would like to know your response, especially the moderators'.

Thanks a million.


----------



## siares

De gustibus non est disputandum.
If they are polite, I would feel sad. If they are not, I would fume quietly but giving any names, definitely no! *EDIT: I actually had a re-think, and maybe would PM the mods so that the person is discouraged from sending such PMs to new members who might take them more seriously.

I'd probably tell them I'll try to remember their preference and not answer.
And maybe even not post in their threads where the topic interests me, but since forum rules allow me to, I will actually only do so if I feel like it.
I'd also say my memory possibly might be helped if they in all their first post politely stated that they are interested in natives only.


----------



## Peterdg

Englishmypassion said:


> What do you do when you, as a non-native English speaker, receive PMs saying "Don't answer my questions/Don't post in my threads; I want native English speakers' answers"?


I would simply ignore the message and do my thing. If I think I have something interesting to say about the question in the thread, I would just say it. I always ignore requests for "native speakers only".

If someone keeps harrassing you, report him/her to a moderator.


----------



## cherine

Hi,

You don't need to reply to such a message, you can just ignore thenm. If the person is rude you can put him/her in your ignore list.

I don't like this attitude (asking people not to reply to one's thread) but I understand it; I know some learners only trust native speakers and they think that only natives know their language better. But from years of experience in the forum, I've learned that many times foreigner learners can know even more things about my own native language than I do, because they learn and approach the language from a different stand point. So, the person who's asking this is actually missing on an opportunity to learn more. There loss, not yours. 
If the thread is of importance to you, and you don't want to look defiant, you can post and add to your post that you are not a native speaker (even if it's already obvious in your profile) and that you only need a confirmation or more clarification.


----------



## siares

Moreover, EMP, I like reading your input in other's threads, so if you stop posting, you might get a PM from me harassing you for more posts.


----------



## Loob

I like the idea of reporting the PM to the mods.  This "I only want answers from native speakers" attitude makes me angry: it's short-sighted, misguided, and just plain _wrong._


----------



## JamesM

You are certainly welcome to report such a mesage.  Alone, it might not be a big thing, but if this person is aggressively rude to multiple people and they all let the moderators know we can approach the person and explain the expected behavior here.  No one "owns" a thread (other than WordReference).  Once you ask a question here it is free for anyone to answer.


----------



## cyberpedant

And if a non-native (or a native) posts an erroneous reply this will almost always be corrected by others in subsequent posts.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thank you, everybody. A very knowledgeable senior member (a compatriot of mine) and I once discussed it and found after comparing notes that it was the same members who had sent us both such messages. I'm sure the same members would be messaging other non-native speakers too. However, I don't get that lone receiver vs multiple receivers part of the rule. 
Thanks.


----------



## fdb

Fortunately, this has not spread to the Latin forum, not yet at least.


----------



## JamesM

Englishmypassion said:


> Thank you, everybody. A very knowledgeable senior member (a compatriot of mine) and I once discussed it and found after comparing notes that it was the same members who had sent us both such messages. I'm sure the same members would be messaging other non-native speakers too. However, I don't get that lone receiver vs multiple receivers part of the rule.
> Thanks.



It's not a rule, EMP.  If even one member is being harassed by another member it should be reported to the moderators.  I'm just saying that some people don't think to mention it to the moderators so we are unaware that it's a much worse problem than we know.


----------



## osa_menor

fdb said:


> Fortunately, this has not spread to the Latin forum, not yet at least.


----------



## elitaliano

I think that when I post something in a thread (a question, an answer), it doesn't belong to me not more, but it belongs to the entire community.
A question does matter not only for who wrote it, but for more foreros.
So, Englishmypassion, if you know how to answer to a question, do it: you will help someone.

_(sorry for my English)_

Same text in Spanish
Pienso que cuando escribo algo en un thread (una pregunta, una respuesta),  ya no soy dueño de eso, sino eso pertenece a la entera comunidad.
Una pregunta no importa solo para el que la escribiò, sino para muchos foreros.
Asì que, Englishmypassion, cuando sepas como contestar a una pregunta, hazlo: ayudaràs a alguien.

_(y ahora: tambien mis disculpas por mi Español con faltas  )_


----------



## velisarius

I totally agree with eli. 

We need more helpful members who are capable of answering questions, as well as asking them. They bring an insight that the native speaker may not have, and are often able to get to the root of the OP's problem quicker.


----------



## King Crimson

And I think there is another aspect that highlights the importance of the collaborative effort of native and non-native speakers to achieve a better translation: when posting a translation request sometimes non-native speakers are not proficient enough in the target language to correctly express their request, in other words second language learners tend to rely on their native language structures (this is called L1 to L2 interference, If I’m not mistaken) and therefore may be misunderstood by native speakers. In such cases only other non-native speakers, more proficient in both languages (or, ideally, bilingual speakers), can help the OP to clarify the request.
A non-native speaker asking that only native speakers respond to his request is shooting himself in the foot, in my opinion.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elitaliano said:


> I think that when I post something in a thread (a question, an answer), it doesn't belong to me not more, but it belongs to the entire community.


That's exactly what the WR rules say:



> When a message is placed in WordReference or its forums, you are granting an irrevocable license to the site to use it in perpetuity.


----------



## Copyright

cherine said:


> I've learned that many times foreigner learners can know even more things about my own native language than I do, because they learn and approach the language from a different stand point.


Amen to that, cherine. Here's a memorable post from EMP:


Englishmypassion said:


> A relative clause modifies its antecedent or provides information about somebody/something. It is an adjectival clause, while the clause "that he is entitled to be served like a king" is a noun clause, which is the object of the verb "feels". (A subordinate clause can be a noun clause, an adjectival/relative clause or an adverbial clause).


If people waited for _this _native speaker to utter that, they'd be waiting for at least three more lifetimes.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thank you very much, siares, Peter, Cherine, James, Loob, Paul, fdb, Cyberpedant, osa, eli, Veli, King Crimson, and Copyright. I am much obliged for your kind posts and encouraging support. 

Additional thanks for your trouble, Copyright. I am overwhelmed with your appreciation and the way you have quoted that post of mine and given a link to the thread is really surprising! I envy your memory and search skills.

Thanks, everybody.


----------



## merquiades

Peterdg said:


> I would simply ignore the message and do my thing. If I think I have something interesting to say about the question in the thread, I would just say it. I always ignore requests for "native speakers only".
> 
> If someone keeps harrassing you, report him/her to a moderator.


  Forums are public not personal, so you have every right to comment wherever you choose.

If the person is harassing you, you can block them.


----------



## velisarius

If you ignore an annoying member, you won't see their threads at all - and possibly miss an interesting discussion. 

It's much easier for the OP who doesn't want non-native input to simply "ignore" the members she/he doesn't want to see in "his/her" threads.


----------



## elroy

Another important point that no one has brought up so far is that the purpose of answering a thread is not only to serve the OP; it's to serve any and all future users of the site.  Threads are linked to dictionary entries and are intended to supplement the dictionaries.  Naturally, it's easy to lose sight of the big picture when we're answering a thread in the moment, and it's human nature to think of threads in the forum as conversations between the participants, but if we consider the future of a thread we quickly realize the OP's preferences don't really matter in the long run.


----------



## germanbz

On one hand, I consider extremely rude and unpolite such attitude. You can simply  say "thank you very much for your time and your help but If you don't mind I'm looking for native speakers opinions. I feel you could understand me....  I think in this case nobody would feel offended. So I think that is a problem of politeness not about the content of the message.

On the other hand, sometimes I feel a bit ankward when in Spanish I read answers either from non native speakers or even native ones, that are not right at all, even with grammar or ortographic mistakes, and it is a bit difficult to say that that messages are completely wrong without opening a "conflict". (I don't say that is your case at all) but sometimes that happens.

So people should pretty aware about their answers to be right and useful and absolutely well based in terms of grammar and orthography in their own native language.

All in all politeness is the most important point. I don't see any problem when in Spanish people ask questions such as "Could any Spanish native speaker from Spain tell me....?   So to ask for a native answer is right ... but the way that demand is made tells us if those people deserve to get an answer or not.


----------



## siares

EMP, did you get PMs in cases when you were the only person to answer the thread? 
I recently answered 2 threads by posting links to other discussions
thread 1: I thought the link I am posting addresses the OP question 100%. The OP then thanked me and clarified he wanted answer about another part of OP sentence. That I couldn't address. He got no other answer - possibly because the forum was busy at the time and there were now 2 replies so the question appeared answered.
thread 2: again I answered it by posting a link to another discussion. OP then posted a question on that (old) discussion, and got no answer.
I feel awkward from possibly preventing them from getting more replies - all this would be solved if an 'unsolved' icon existed... I will be careful and not post link to old threads unless there are other answerers already engaged in discussion.


----------



## Sowka

Hello 



siares said:


> OP then posted a question on that (old) discussion, and got no answer.
> I feel awkward from possibly preventing them from getting more replies



In such a case, you can alert the moderators of the forum. They will then deal with the issue. 

By the way: When I see a thread with a reply, I never assume that the problem has been solved. I'm interested in reading the question and the reply/replies, and maybe I can add something ... Sometimes people don't reply just because they don't know an answer. You should not feel responsible for that.


----------



## OSSEAN

cherine said:


> Hi,
> 
> You don't need to reply to such a message, you can just ignore thenm. If the person is rude you can put him/her in your ignore list.
> 
> I don't like this attitude (asking people not to reply to one's thread) but I understand it; I know some learners only trust native speakers and they think that only natives know their language better. But from years of experience in the forum, I've learned that many times foreigner learners can know even more things about my own native language than I do, because they learn and approach the language from a different stand point. So, the person who's asking this is actually missing on an opportunity to learn more. There loss, not yours.
> If the thread is of importance to you, and you don't want to look defiant, you can post and add to your post that you are not a native speaker (even if it's already obvious in your profile) and that you only need a confirmation or more clarification.



Hi,
I think you wanted to say "their loss..."

Greetings from BA...


----------



## OSSEAN

elroy said:


> Another important point that no one has brought up so far is that the purpose of answering a thread is not only to serve the OP; it's to serve any and all future users of the site.  Threads are linked to dictionary entries and are intended to supplement the dictionaries.  Naturally, it's easy to lose sight of the big picture when we're answering a thread in the moment, and it's human nature to think of threads in the forum as conversations between the participants, but if we consider the future of a thread we quickly realize the OP's preferences don't really matter in the long run.





velisarius said:


> If you ignore an annoying member, you won't see their threads at all - and possibly miss an interesting discussion.
> 
> It's much easier for the OP who doesn't want non-native input to simply "ignore" the members she/he doesn't want to see in "his/her" threads.



Quite right!
I agree with both of you... let's not miss the forest because of the beautiful tree... (I think I just rephrased the saying )

Cheers from Buenos Aires waiting for Spring....
OSSEAN


Edited to clarify quotation.  Cagey, moderator.


----------



## Englishmypassion

siares said:


> EMP, did you get PMs in cases when you were the only person to answer the thread?
> I recently answered 2 threads by posting links to other discussions



Thanks. No, I was not the only member to answer neither did I give a link to any other thread, but I was the first to answer on two occasions. And, surprisingly the native English speakers who posted after me agreed with me!


Thanks for your kind posts, everybody.


----------



## Barque

I answer questions fairly regularly on the English Only forum and I've often got messages like the ones the OP refers to. I've got several in the last few days.

I can understand that people asking questions would prefer a native speaker's answer, as this post says.


cherine said:


> I know some learners only trust native speakers and they think that only natives know their language better.


The thing that's difficult to take is that people asking questions here seem to have a sense of entitlement; they expect that they have a right to receive answers. People who answer questions here use their free time to try and help learners on the forum. Are there members who actually think that people answering questions here are paid to do so or something?

One or two people have asked me reasonably politely not to answer their questions because they'd prefer a native speaker's answer. Most have told me, not asked. And not politely.

As I see it, when people ask questions here, they're essentially saying "Whoever can help, please do". I don't think they should be allowed to choose who answers their questions. In any case, if someone provides a wrong answer, it'll be spotted and corrected, especially if the answer's from a non-native speaker. I can say that from experience. With native speakers' answers of course, inaccurate ones, if any, are more likely to go unnoticed because people see on the main page that the last person to answer was a native speaker and often assume it'll be correct.

I find it strange that quite a few people seem to think they can decide who they want answers from, when, by asking questions here, they're essentially asking for a favour.

I reported the last such message I received, and was told by the moderators they couldn't do anything about it because the request was "polite". When I expressed surprise, I was then told that they'd spoken to the concerned member about it. I don't know what they said to him.

I've read the earlier messages here, some of which say that people who receive such messages can block the person sending it. Sure, that's an option, but isn't it more important that people sending such messages are told that they can't pick and choose, or lay down conditions? I mean, the cause needs to be addressed, not the effect.


----------



## DonnyB

Over the course of the last four years since this thread was first started, we (the mods, that is) have started taking a tougher line on this issue and requests in threads for replies from "native speakers only" will in most cases now be removed. The "let's wait for native speakers" variant is potentially trickier, and I wouldn't for example object to a request for a speaker of American English to answer whether something which doesn't work in British English does on the other side of the Atlantic.  This whole issue may be more prevalent in some forums than others, too.

It gets awkward when the request is made by private conversation rather than in the public forums.  As long as the request is polite, then realistically the recipient has a free choice of either disregarding it and answering the questions regardless or taking the perhaps more pragmatic approach of _"it's your loss and not mine"_ and simply going along with it: there are plenty of other threads to choose from where the OP will be more appreciative.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, the flipside of this particular coin is that we do come across members (almost always new ones) who start answering questions above their level of ability, causing confusion, and in extreme cases, wrecking the thread.  In those cases we do have to try and curtail the right of those members to freely pick and choose which questions to answer.  But in more general terms, a "wrong" answer from a non-native will usually be corrected by somebody, and if no native speakers post a reply it generally means that the answer(s) already given are correct and there's therefore going to be no point in specifically asking for one.


----------



## Loob

Barque said:


> the cause needs to be addressed, not the effect.


Hear, hear. Perhaps this sense of entitlement could be specifically addressed in the Rules?


DonnyB said:


> we do come across members (almost always new ones) who start answering questions above their level of ability


A point which of course applies to native speakers as well as non-native ones.


----------



## ewie

DonnyB said:


> the flipside of this particular coin is that we do come across members (almost always new ones) who start answering questions above their level of ability


Furthermore, members sometimes turn up who _claim_ to be natives but clearly aren't.


----------



## suzi br

Loob said:


> A point which of course applies to native speakers as well as non-native ones.



Ain’t that the truth!

It’s depressing to see Barque felt the need to dig up this topic and I am sad to read his experiences of PMs on the theme. Barque’s grasp of English is obviously remarkably good. For all I know he’s a professor in the subject, in any case, he’s capable of knocking spots off plenty of “natives”.

So I’m pleased to hear Donny’s update on the mods’ views on this. It needs squashing where possible, especially for the reasons laid out years ago in post #4 and others.

I’ve been thinking “what would I do if someone wrote to me saying don’t answer my questions?”
I would be in-can-f’ing-descent! Honestly. The cheek of it.
And the arrogance of thinking I’m going to notice the name of every OP thread I open and remember their precious name enough to ignore their questions.

And I guess that’s the gist of what I’d write back: “get over yerself”. Or I’d ignore the  PM and just block them. My current list of ignored members* runs quite long, all for infringements much less personal than this.

*36 of them, if you want to know. I don’t think I miss them and I still find plenty to engage my own interests in here. So, Barque, that’s my advice. Ditch the bigots. They’re not worthy of you anyway.


----------



## Peterdg

suzi br said:


> and just block them


I don't block anyone. I just ignore those "requests" and I go on with my life..


----------



## suzi br

Peterdg said:


> I don't block anyone. I just ignore those "requests" and I go on with my life..


It’s never happened to me. My blocked list arose from a diverse range of stimuli, over the years, but never this one. 

However, I would block them if I got such a post because they didn’t deserve to have the benefit of my wisdom.


----------



## velisarius

I've had one or two members question my status as a native speaker, which particularly annoyed me because that would imply that I've given false information on my profile. 

As far as English goes, I consider Barque to be a native speaker - and there are several "non-native" members here whose knowledge of English grammar is truly impressive. They are one of the reasons I come on here. _Pearls before swine..._


----------



## Englishmypassion

velisarius said:


> As far as English goes, I consider Barque to be a native speaker...



One who has a deep insight into the language.


----------



## sound shift

Englishmypassion said:


> One who has a deep insight into the language.


... and into the language of cricket in particular; deeper than mine, in fact.


----------



## Barque

I get messages asking me to mind my own business and not answer posts, ranging from polite to not very polite, every few weeks or so. I've reported some and ignored some.

Got another one today. It's getting boring. The only good thing is that it doesn't seem to be limited to any particular race--I've got them from east Asians and Middle Easterners and Europeans. And Indians.


----------



## Loob

One thing this person needs to realise is that his threads are not "his". 

If it was me, I'd be reporting every such request.


----------



## merquiades

Barque said:


> I get messages asking me to mind my own business and not answer posts, ranging from polite to not very polite, every few weeks or so. I've reported some and ignored some.
> 
> Got another one today. It's getting boring. The only good thing is that it doesn't seem to be limited to any particular race--I've got them from east Asians and Middle Easterners and Europeans. And Indians.


It's ridiculous.  You can write on any "public" thread you want.  They do not belong to him even if he started them.
If he doesn't want to read your response he can block you.
You can even block him if you don't want to get any more of these harassing messages.


----------



## Barque

I just got a second one on the same day. This is a first.


----------



## Loob

To repeat my plea of some months ago:


Loob said:


> Barque said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cause needs to be addressed, not the effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Hear, hear. Perhaps this sense of entitlement could be specifically addressed in the Rules?
Click to expand...


----------



## merquiades

It would be rather easy to address this.  They would just need to specify in the rules that 1) all threads belong to WR and its members, not just the original person creating the thread, and their goal is to complement the dictionary, 2) all members in good standing have the right to comment in a thread if they feel they can shed light on the question, 3) all members are valued equally regardless of origin, language, background.... gender....


----------



## DonnyB

I must admit I'm not personally in favour of tinkering around with the rules to try and solve this.  We already have a stipulation to the effect that members should contribute to  "an atmosphere ..... with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" and " Treat others in the way that you wish to be treated. " (Rule 7).

Although making alterations to the rules might appear outwardly straightforward, it's actually a major task, which entails agreeing on the wording and layout, and then updating reproductions of them in all or most of the individual forums, together with the associated translations of them.  Whether the reported scale of this particular problem justifies all that effort is open to question in my view.

In addition, to give out _any_ appearance of an unfettered right to post in any thread you felt like, _could,_ depending on how you worded it, open the door to all sorts of useless ill-informed fifteen-minutes-of-fame contributions of little or no value to the person who asked the question, or to anyone else. The mods have enough disputes to deal with as it is over whether a post is a valid contribution to the thread or not.


----------



## boozer

Interesting, all that. 

In my experience, people who insist on an answer from a native speaker are usually at or near the very top of English language competence in their respective countries. This makes them think that only someone born with English could match their own competence. They feel insulted and ashamed that someone else who also speaks English as a... well, second language... may actually be able to answer their question. Of course, the fact that you cannot recognise the truth that stares you in the face if it was uttered by 'your ESL peers' means that you still have a lot to learn.  Like we all do, of course. Maybe one day I will display myself as bilingual just to spite them and see if they can tell the difference. 

For my part, when I ask a question, I never set conditions because I believe I will know the truth when I hear it, irrespective of who's said it. And then, I find it rude - I have friends out there...

As for private messages, no, I have not received PM, although I have been challenged on the open forums. I do not think I would report. I hardly ever report anything. I know, however, that my answer to such a PM would be "reportably" rude


----------



## Loob

Does it only happen in the context of English Only, I wonder?


----------



## bandini

Englishmypassion said:


> Hello All,
> Namaskar.
> What do you do when you, as a non-native English speaker, receive PMs saying "Don't answer my questions/Don't post in my threads; I want native English speakers' answers"? Well, I'm not asking for no reason -- have you also received such personal messages? I'll tell you the names if you/moderators are interested and/or after _you_ name some.
> 
> I would like to know your response, especially the moderators'.
> 
> Thanks a million.



Sorry this happened to you.  That is so rude.  Just put these people on your "ignore" list so you never have to deal with them again.


----------



## bandini

suzi br said:


> Ain’t that the truth!
> 
> It’s depressing to see Barque felt the need to dig up this topic and I am sad to read his experiences of PMs on the theme. Barque’s grasp of English is obviously remarkably good. For all I know he’s a professor in the subject, in any case, he’s capable of knocking spots off plenty of “natives”.
> 
> So I’m pleased to hear Donny’s update on the mods’ views on this. It needs squashing where possible, especially for the reasons laid out years ago in post #4 and others.
> 
> I’ve been thinking “what would I do if someone wrote to me saying don’t answer my questions?”
> I would be in-can-f’ing-descent! Honestly. The cheek of it.
> And the arrogance of thinking I’m going to notice the name of every OP thread I open and remember their precious name enough to ignore their questions.
> 
> And I guess that’s the gist of what I’d write back: “get over yerself”. Or I’d ignore the  PM and just block them. My current list of ignored members* runs quite long, all for infringements much less personal than this.
> 
> *36 of them, if you want to know. I don’t think I miss them and I still find plenty to engage my own interests in here. So, Barque, that’s my advice. Ditch the bigots. They’re not worthy of you anyway.



jajaja...I like your attitude, Suzi.  I have an "ignore" list, also, for various petty offenses because it's just easier to steer away from negative energy.


----------



## merquiades

Loob said:


> Does it only happen in the context of English Only, I wonder?


No, I don't often visit English Only.  It happens in other forums too.


----------



## Loob

merquiades said:


> No, I don't often visit English Only.  It happens in other forums too.


The PMs too, merq? It's clear from previous posts that there are "natives only" requests in various forums, but I was wondering specifically about the "don't post in my thread" PMs.


----------



## wildan1

merquiades said:


> They would just need to specify in the rules that 1) all threads belong to WR and its members, not just the original person creating the thread,


Rule 16 of the Forum rules, by which anyone applying to be a member agrees to abide, already specifies this:


> 16. When a message is placed in WordReference or its forums, you are granting an irrevocable license to the site to use it in perpetuity.


----------



## OSSEAN

DonnyB said:


> I must admit I'm not personally in favour of tinkering around with the rules to try and solve this.  We already have a stipulation to the effect that members should contribute to  "an atmosphere ..... with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" and " Treat others in the way that you wish to be treated. " (Rule 7).


Terms and rules
May be that same 7th rule could be posted on All WR Forums main page ¿As a recall or a warning perhaps?


----------



## merquiades

Loob said:


> The PMs too, merq? It's clear from previous posts that there are "natives only" requests in various forums, but I was wondering specifically about the "don't post in my thread" PMs.


Yes, it does happen on occasion.  I thought everybody got an arrogant message once in a while asking them not to answer.
The worst was a person who would copy my post and ask a question like "Can a native just confirm this answer or else give the right answer?"  Normally no one would answer.  Then once he wrote me a private message telling me I was rude and not to answer his queries because he wanted to interact with natives and the natives didn't ever reply after me because they thought the question had been answered.  I blocked him but he's still around, and I would never answer his threads anyway.
I don't get it much anymore because after a while you get to know the forum and what type of person is susceptible to have an attitude.. so you can avoid them naturally.


----------



## DonnyB

Let me just offer an idea.  

Part of the rationale behind the introduction of "reactions" was to let people see at a glance which versions of a translation or which answers to a question were 'agreed' by members as being reliable.  Is there any mileage in making members' reaction scores publicly visible (at the more they're not) - either by default or as an individual preference setting?  This could (in theory at least) offer some reassurance that the member concerned had a 'reputation' for giving reliable answers.  An obvious downside is that it would effectively penalize those members who post exclusively or mainly in forums which don't have them.


----------



## Barque

I have a variation on that idea. Could things be set up so that when a member receives an "Agree" reaction, an alert is sent to everyone who's posted on the thread, just as they are for new messages?

Not for Thank yous. There are some members who run around using Thank you reactions like "Likes", including posts in threads they haven't even participated in.


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry, the idea of making Reaction scores public sets my teeth on edge: it would turn the forums into a popularity contest.


----------



## boozer

DonnyB said:


> Is there any mileage in making members' reaction scores publicly visible (at the more they're not) - either by default or as an individual preference setting?


I quite like the idea of regularising members' general 'street creed' as some publicly visible score, of sorts. 
At the same time


Loob said:


> I'm sorry, the idea of making Reaction scores public sets my teeth on edge: it would turn the forums into a popularity contest.


I have to agree with Loob that a nice language forum may degenerate into some beauty contest  And then, this may give impetus to a scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours attitude whenever any two forum members are good enough friends. 

Perhaps counting thank yous from the thread starter alone could be considered, although thread starters may be unable to evaluate the answer they have received.   It is complicated. Maybe, still, a new 'attitude' may be added along the newly introduced 'thank you' and 'agree' - 'disagree'? Although I agree that a simple 'disagree' is not enough without an explanation.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> Could things be set up so that when a member receives an "Agree" reaction, an alert is sent to everyone who's posted on the thread, just as they are for new messages?


 I would support this.  I've had the same thought myself.


----------



## velisarius

Barque said:


> I have a variation on that idea. Could things be set up so that when a member receives an "Agree" reaction, an alert is sent to everyone who's posted on the thread, just as they are for new messages?



 I thought a strong reason for introducing the "agree" and "thank you" symbols was to avoid participants in the thread being notified when nothing of significance was added to it.


----------



## Barque

I agree that applies to the thank yous, but letting the OP know of an "Agree" reaction could tell him that there are others who agree with the person who answered him, and give him some reassurance if he wasn't convinced earlier. And sometimes there are multiple OPs, so to speak, with people asking related questions in an existing thread, so I suggested an alert to everyone.

I'd say it's as important for the OP to know there are people who agree with the person who answered him as it is for the person who answered, perhaps more.


----------



## merquiades

I wouldn't like to get an alert for every "agree" and "thank you" in the thread.  I'd have 20 alerts every time I connect.
I don't care if there is a score for "agrees" and "thank yous".  I probably wouldn't look at it anyhow.  A popularity contest would be linked to "likes", and fortunately we don't have "likes" and "loves" here.
When you've been on the forum for a while as I said earlier, you know what people to trust, listen to, or not.


----------



## elroy

merquiades said:


> I wouldn't like to get an alert for every "agree" and "thank you" in the thread.


 I assume that if this feature were added, you would have the option of disabling it — as is currently the case with all other types of alerts.


----------



## bandini

Would it start from now or be retroactive?


----------



## swift

You can also configure your private messaging preferences so that only people you follow can message you. This is something @Barque could try for a few months. That way, whoever is trying to harass you will see their attempts at disqualifying your contributions frustrated. It may be a deterrent since they will probably feel less prone to make the same requests in public.


----------



## siares

swift said:


> You can also configure your private messaging preferences so that only people you follow can message you. This is something @Barque could try for a few months.


No, no, no! I wouldn't have been able to message Barque that way. 


Barque said:


> I have a variation on that idea. Could things be set up so that when a member receives an "Agree" reaction, an alert is sent to everyone who's posted on the thread, just as they are for new messages?


I like the idea.


----------



## elroy

Loob said:


> the idea of making Reaction scores public sets my teeth on edge: it would turn the forums into a popularity contest.


 I'm curious, why do you think it would?  I'm not saying it _wouldn't_, and I'm not even necessarily advocating making reaction scores public, but I don't see any evidence indicating that they would trigger a popularity contest.  After all, post counts are visible, and have always been, and although I'm sure there have been some cases of people posting just to increase their post count, I don't think this has ever caused any major problems.  Making reaction scores public comes with its issues, but I don't see any reason to suspect that one of them would be turning the forums into a popularity contest.  Perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## swift

Reactions are a very recent implementation, so whatever scores you may find will be meaningless unless you have been around for some time. Since there seems to be no plans to roll out the reactions feature across all forums, people who engage mostly in those forums where reactions have not been enabled will appear to have a reduced number of community endorsements. People who engage mostly in non-linguistic forums where other people endorse their political and ideological stances will appear to be trustworthy in translation and language matters. It’s quite misleading.


----------



## elroy

I agree; I referred to these issues in the post I linked to.  I still don’t see any reason to assume that making reaction scores public would trigger a popularity contest.


----------



## swift

I just can’t see how public scores will counter someone’s sense of entitlement, racism, sexism or bigotry. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## bandini

The subject of reaction scores appears to be a solution in search of a problem.  Simple truth is... people are a-holes.  I know that's brutal but it's the one constant thread that runs through the entire bloody book of human history and no silly scoring system will change it. Familiarity breeds contempt. If I may speak for my compatriots, most native English speakers are not extremely interested in what other English speakers have to say on foreign language. We want to hear from the natives! And why not? They know the secrets! They possess the Holy Grail we all desire! We want to be like them and I don't see anything wrong with that. After all, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Maybe what's missing here are poor manners, lack of social skills and proper education to know how to talk to people with mutual respect.  We see this plaguing our world today and many of us in our own countries.  Maybe it's endemic to our species as we all share tribal beginnings.  Oh well, end of sermon.  Have a good weekend, all.


----------



## Nanon

swift said:


> People who engage mostly in non-linguistic forums where other people endorse their political and ideological stances will appear to be trustworthy in translation and language matters. It’s quite misleading.


This also applies to linguistic forums with, or without, Reactions enabled: the total number of reactions does not reflect the member's actual competence in a particular language. Even crossing the number of reactions with Post areas in the profile does not tell you how reliable a person is: you don't know if the person is asking or answering, agreeing or thanking, until you read their actual threads.
And, of course, there are always people you agree or disagree with, because of ideological reasons, because you (dis)like them, and the like.


----------



## elroy

swift said:


> I just can’t see how public scores will counter someone’s sense of entitlement, racism, sexism or bigotry. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️


 They probably wouldn't.  Public reaction scores came up in this thread as a _possible_ way to avoid at least some of these "don't answer my questions because you're not a native speaker" cases -- namely, those in which the request stems from a belief on the part of the requestor that the answers they've received are not reliable simply because the responder is not a native speaker.  In that case, public reaction scores could _in theory_ help quell some of those concerns (in the case of non-native speakers who _do_ consistently give valid answers and this is reflected in consistent agreement with them via reactions).

Loob then objected to public reaction scores on account of her belief that they would turn the forums into a popularity contest.  I continue to be curious as to what reasons there are to suspect that they would.  Again, I've repeatedly acknowledged that public reaction scores would come with issues, and I realize it doesn't just come down to whether they would trigger a popularity contest.  My question really was a straightforward one about Loob's _reasons_ for her prediction: I was not suggesting that we _should _make reaction scores public, nor was I suggesting that public reaction scores would fully resolve the issue being discussed in this thread (in fact, I'm almost positive they wouldn't!  At best they might _decrease_ the number of incidents).  I'm curious about Loob's reasons because this would be something to possibly consider if we ever seriously look into making reaction scores public (for any reason).


----------



## Loob

Elroy, I think the spotlight in this thread should stay on the central issue of harassment.


----------



## siares

But discussion about whether scores create problems was a reaction to a proposed solution.
Problem: harassment.

Solution 1: changing the rules
Drawback to 1: complicated to implement, probably will not happen

Solution 2: send alerts to everyone who participated in the thread, so as to reach second OPs
Drawback 2a: people who don't want to receive alerts will receive more of them
made more serious by the fact, that only a disadvantaged minority of OPs in EO and some other forums choose to add to existing threads, so it is unlikely these second OPs do the most harassing

Solution 3: make reaction scores public
Drawback 3a: not all forums have reactions. Harassers from those forums will have not be put off.
Drawback 3b: people may be fooled into thinking somebody is reliable based on agreements with the answerer's, say, CCposts
This still takes care of the problem though.
Drawback 3c: people may be fooled into thinking somebody is unreliable based on low score count, for answerers posting only seldom etc.
Drawback 3d: people may treat reaction scores as popularity contest

Solution 4: harassed people turn off receiving PMs
Drawback 4a: not really that serious, as answerers still can communicate with the outside world if they write, or if they follow others.
Maybe if there was a solution: only people who are following you can PM you, that would act as psychological deterrent

Solution 5: reporting
I don´t know what happens after reports.


----------



## swift

siares said:


> Solution 5: reporting
> I don´t know what happens after reports.


To me, that’s the best solution. Mods will examine the situation and handle it privately.  If the behavior is recurrent, the harasser will receive a warning, and if their behavior doesn’t change, they will be banned.

Post counts, post areas and, presumably, reaction scores, are not immediately visible. With the previous software, the post count was visible under the username. It would take several clicks or hovering-over the username to get all those details.


----------



## DonnyB

siares said:


> Solution 5: reporting
> I don´t know what happens after reports.


Drawback 5a: It's in the nature of 'damage limitation': it doesn't stop it from happening.  We would contact the individual member who's done it, privately, and explain the situation to them.  _In time_, we might be able to get a rough idea of why some people are doing it (or, if you like, why they felt the need to do it). But it still leaves us with the need to develop an effective strategy to _prevent_ it.


----------



## Barque

DonnyB said:


> But it still leaves us with the need to develop an effective strategy to _prevent_ it.


Perhaps the forum rules, or something else new members are required to read, could have a provision saying different people from different parts of the world may answer questions on any language forum, and these are generally likely to be seen by other, native-speaking, members and mods, and that if you have a problem with this, please contact the mods.


----------



## DonnyB

Barque said:


> Perhaps the forum rules, or something else new members are required to read, could have a provision saying different people from different parts of the world may answer questions on any language forum, and these are generally likely to be seen by other, native-speaking, members and mods, and that if you have a problem with this, please contact the mods.


Yeah, I half-answered this, I think, in post #44. 

A big snag I can foresee with it is that considering the number of people who seem to blithely ignore what it says in the rules and in the individual forum guidelines, I'm not sure how effective it would be.  A case in point is that a message tells you when you try and edit a post not to edit it in a way that makes nonsense of subsequent responses: we've experimented now with a number of different versions/placements of that message, but it's made little difference, people _still_ do it. 

One of the things it seems to me that we don't really know is _why_ some members try and ask specifically for responses from native speakers.  I've certainly seen this_ 'help from native speakers'_ line used as a "selling point" on websites, but why do members do it here?  Do they just automatically _assume_ native speakers will give better answers, or have they had negative past experiences?


----------



## siares

DonnyB said:


> why do members do it here? Do they just automatically _assume_ native speakers will give better answers, or have they had negative past experiences?


They must have had negative experiences outside the forum... and they can ask non-native speakers anytime, in real life. There is higher chance of correct answer from native speakers, if we assume that both native and non-native members who answer posts are random. Normally they are a bit of language nerds.

I imagine people would still be interested in an answer from anybody, except...any post that cannot answer the question - but adds to post count - puts the thread into risk of never being answered. Then the solution would be

6 Solved/unsolved button
Drawback 6a complicated to implement technically?
6b extreme ideological opposition


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DonnyB said:


> Do they just automatically _assume_ native speakers will give better answers


It seems so, and they clearly don't take into account that a poorly educated native speaker is more likely to give inaccurate and unreliable answers than a very well educated, yet non-native speakers who, for example, has extensively studied that language, especially when grammar is involved.


----------



## Nanon

DonnyB said:


> I've certainly seen this_ 'help from native speakers'_ line used as a "selling point" on websites, but why do members do it here?  Do they just automatically _assume_ native speakers will give better answers, or have they had negative past experiences?


WR also does:


> The WordReference language forum is the largest repository of knowledge and advice about the English language, as well as a number of other languages. If you have a question about language usage, first search the hundreds of thousands of previous questions. If you still are unsure, then you can ask the question yourself. Native speakers from around the world will be happy to assist you. Source: English to French, Italian, German & Spanish Dictionary - WordReference.com


Indeed, if users have seen this, they are likely to expect answers from native speakers. Point 1 is - _*if *_(same as for rules: who does read this?). Point 2 is that correct answers are not always provided by native speakers - for example, no native English speaker is a specialist in a given area, and a non-native specialist is available: should that non-native be silent forever?


----------



## DonnyB

siares said:


> They must have had negative experiences outside the forum... and they can ask non-native speakers anytime, in real life. There is higher chance of correct answer from native speakers, if we assume that both native and non-native members who answer posts are random. Normally they are a bit of language nerds.
> 
> I imagine people would still be interested in an answer from anybody, except...any post that cannot answer the question - but adds to post count - puts the thread into risk of never being answered. Then the solution would be
> 
> 6 Solved/unsolved button
> Drawback 6a complicated to implement technically?
> 6b extreme ideological opposition


I think we tend to rely on the OP posting a thank-you or acknowledgement for (6).  I wouldn't personally bother posting another answer in a thread where I'd seen one.  That, plus the fact that they can report the thread if it's received no answers (or only ones that they're not happy with).

How does this work in the bilingual forums, incidentally, given that _relatively_ few members are actually bilingual? 

Do people seem to _prefer/trust_ translations/answers provided by a native speaker (given that they're presumably not allowed to _specify_ them)?


----------



## swift

Nanon said:


> for example, no native English speaker is a specialist in a given area, and a non-native specialist is available: should that non-native be silent forever?


Great question! The answer is of course not, but subject matter expertise is something that not all people seem to value or appreciate following a coherent standard. If the expert is not a native speaker of the target language, some people will not feel comfortable until a native, albeit less proficient and possibly clueless about the specific nuances of a given technolect or dialect, comes along and vouches the presumably better informed and experimented non-native specialist.

Some people also discourage tagging experts, which they perceive as a deterrent to free discussions. Go figure.


----------



## bandini

That's always been the gold standard in language forums.  Others can pine away all they want and offer solutions, and their contributions are appreciated but it's not official until a native puts their stamp of approval on it.  I've noticed some people even take it a step further and request only people from a *specific* *country* answer!  You can regulate and social engineer to your heart's content but I doubt you can change human nature.


----------



## Nanon

@DonnyB , in my experience of bilingual forums, answerers often add "we should wait for a native" or "I am not a native, though". Best-case scenario - a native will come over and validate the answer. Worst-case scenario - the OP whines "Can't a native answer me?" even if they have the right answer to their question.
Also, when several variants of the target language exist (e.g. Spanish, or BrE vs AmE, or France vs Canada...) and there may be more than one trustworthy and valid answer, I do post additional information as far as needed in threads that have been answered. Answering threads is not just about making the customer (the OP) happy, nor about competing for the best answer. The "one best way" concept does not apply to speaking a language. Sometimes I would do so even if an answer from a specific country has been requested (in that case, I would add information about the country or region where this variant can be found, if necessary), because after all, information needs to be shared and threads are owned by WR, not by members.


----------



## swift

bandini said:


> You can regulate and social engineer to your heart's content but I doubt you can change human nature.





Nanon said:


> Sometimes I would do so even if an answer from a specific country has been requested (in that case, I would add information about the country or region where this variant can be found), because after all, information needs to be shared and threads are owned by WR, not by members.


I just ignore the portion that says _how would this be phrased in <country>?_ and provide the dialectal varieties I am familiar with (which sometimes includes the sought-after variety). Typically, someone from the mentioned country has already chimed in, so all the more reason to provide other options. After all, threads are an extension to the dictionaries.


----------



## Loob

A specifically-English version of the quote in post 81:

*The English Dictionary*
WordReference is proud to offer two English dictionaries--the _WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English_ and the _Collins Concise English Dictionary_. These prestigious dictionaries contain more than 125,000 words and phrases.

If you still cannot find a term, you can ask or search in the forums, where many native English speakers love to assist others in their understanding of the English language.


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> A specifically-English version of the quote in post 81:
> If you still cannot find a term, you can ask or search in the forums, where many native English speakers love to assist others in their understanding of the English language.


So, where does that leave us, then?

Do we:
- (a) Leave it as it is on the grounds that it doesn't offer a guarantee that your particular question will in fact be answered by a _native_ English speaker?
- (b) Ask the Administrator how he feels about amending it (and the other version(s) of it), possibly by removing the word _'native_'?
- (c) Allow members to specify a _preference_ if they have one, while making it clear that they can't _insist_ on it?
- (d) Something else?


----------



## L'irlandais

DonnyB said:


> Let me just offer an idea.
> 
> Part of the rationale behind the introduction of "reactions" was to let people see at a glance which versions of a translation or which answers to a question were 'agreed' by members as being reliable.  Is there any mileage in making members' reaction scores publicly visible (at the more they're not) - either by default or as an individual preference setting?  This could (in theory at least) offer some reassurance that the member concerned had a 'reputation' for giving reliable answers.  An obvious downside is that it would effectively penalize those members who post exclusively or mainly in forums which don't have them.


I don’t think so personally.  Few of my much thought out and carefully considered posts get reactions.  Most of my reactions are from social threads.


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> where many native English speakers *language enthusiasts *love to assist others


Thoughts?


----------



## elroy

Or maybe "native and other advanced speakers (of English)"?

I think it's good to include the fact that many native speakers reply.  It's a good selling point.


----------



## PaulQ

A couple of years ago, I noted such a demand to have the question answered by a native speaker when a much respected contributor had responded.  I saw it as completely unacceptable and, given the immediacy of the slight, included a response in my answer. I felt this direct method justified as busy mods might take some time to reply. I also believe that it sent an important message of support and sympathy to the insulted member.

I take DonnyB’s point above at #29 





> I wouldn't for example object to a request for a speaker of American English to answer whether something which doesn't work in British English does on the other side of the Atlantic.


to be particularly relevant as my AE skills are nowhere near as sharp as I once believed. However, I suggest there is a difference: the request for an AE speaker is made only if the responder states that they are a BE speaker: In the cases of non-native speakers the discriminatory assumption is made that they are not.



DonnyB said:


> we do come across members (almost always new ones) who start answering questions above their level of ability, causing confusion, and in extreme cases, wrecking the thread.


Reporting the post as “likely to mislead”, and thus to have it deleted, is the solution.

Non-native speakers who receive such messages might wish to try stating that they are bilingual in their profiles.  In the circumstances, bothering about the precise definition of “bilingual” in the case of respected members is trivial.

Finally, I have taken from Loob’s posts the feeling that I share:  unsubstantiated and discriminatory PM’s and posts are completely unacceptable.


----------



## velisarius

I think we should be distinguishing between PMs and on-forum posts. 

Not everyone is a nice, polite person (or completely sane), and some rude people may send personal messages that are offensive, to a greater or lesser degree. I always think the best thing to do is to ignore them - or if you think that the rude person may be harassing other members as well, to report them. It isn't fair to the mods to involve them in a personal quarrel conducted via PM.


----------



## DonnyB

PaulQ said:


> A couple of years ago, I noted such a demand to have the question answered by a native speaker when a much respected contributor had responded.  I saw it as completely unacceptable and, given the immediacy of the slight, included a response in my answer. I felt this direct method justified as busy mods might take some time to reply. I also believe that it sent an important message of support and sympathy to the insulted member.


The 'busy mods' would very much prefer that you not do this, please.     As I mentioned earlier (post #29) we have been taking steps to eradicate this practice in the public forums and have certainly I think succeeded in reducing the incidence of it.

Clearly and obviously, posting a straightforward endorsement/confirmation of the previous answer is helpful in -
(a) Reinforcing to the person who asked the question that the previous answer was correct.
(b) Giving backing to the allegedly "insulted" member.
(c) Last but by no means least, providing information to anyone who may read the thread in the future that the answers are the correct ones.

However, adding a criticism of the type you describe, however well-intentioned, is not helpful.  It -
(1) is off-topic.
(2) can provoke a counter-reaction from the OP.
(3) can further detract from the progress of the discussion if other members then start commenting on it, leaving the impression that members are 'ganging up'.
(4) leave us (the mods) the task of performing extensive 'surgery' on the thread in order to restore it to a fit state for public display.

It's _much_ better to simply report the problem and leave it at that.  We aim these days for a fast turn-round time on reported posts, and in the vast majority of cases will be able take any necessary action before any real damage is done.



PaulQ said:


> Non-native speakers who receive such messages might wish to try stating that they are bilingual in their profiles.  In the circumstances, bothering about the precise definition of “bilingual” in the case of respected members is trivial.


I'm not sure I'd agree that anything to do with allowing members to label themselves as 'bilingual' is trivial.  The word does have quite a specific meaning, which most people I imagine will interpret as signifying what is normally meant by the standard definition of it.  We could, on the other hand, usefully look into the possibility of just allowing two native languages to be listed, as signifying near-native competency in the second one.


----------



## rarabara

There are some users who intend or have tendency  to say "I expect the response from native speakers of this language" but show no sign to ensure other users understand that point.
in this case, should we other speakers of that language respond the question or query?
what is your idea on this issue?


----------



## velisarius

I'm not sure what you mean, rarabara, but I think some people's feelings get hurt when others who speak the same language rush to answer a question about another language. It can be perceived as a show of superiority.

For example: Ariadne, whose native language is Greek, asks a question about English grammar on English Only, and Babis, who is also a Greek speaker but whose level of English is much more advanced than Ariadne's, rushes to answer first. Babis may have special insight into Ariadne's problem, since they share a linguistic background. But... it's very likely that Ariadne will feel upset, and think that Babis is just showing off. This is human nature. If this becomes a pattern, Ariadne may ask Babis to desist. I can understand this kind of reaction, but not condone it.


----------



## User With No Name

velisarius said:


> Babis may have special insight into Ariadne's problem, since they share a linguistic background. But... it's very likely that Ariadne will feel upset, and think that Babis is just showing off. This is human nature.


I  must say that every now and then I see a question from a beginning or intermediate English-speaking learner of Spanish that I'm pretty sure I could answer in a simpler and more level-appropriate way than most native Spanish speakers. But I rarely do so, for just the reason you mention. It can also annoy native speakers, who sometimes don't realize that the most linguistically sophisticated and detailed explanation of a given topic isn't necessarily more helpful than a simplified version, even if it doesn't cover every subtlety.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

velisarius said:


> Babis is just showing off. This is human nature


That's in fact a big issue.
People whose main purpose is to show off rather than help will often answer poorly framed, context free questions as quickly as possible even though they are aware it is a wild guess and they know they are not supposed to do it (report and not reply to problematic questions should be the rule).
Native speakers do that too, unfortunately.


User With No Name said:


> sometimes don't realize that the most linguistically sophisticated and detailed explanation of a given topic isn't necessarily more helpful than a simplified version


Absolutely and it often goes back to "showing off".
Helping language learners (discussing language subjects with fellow native speakers is a different matter) also means  framing the answers in a way that is easy for learners to understand. Showing off to prove one's skills doesn't often accomplish that goal.


----------



## elroy

rarabara said:


> There are some users who intend or have tendency  to say "I expect the response from native speakers of this language" but show no sign to ensure other users understand that point.
> in this case, should we other speakers of that language respond the question or query?
> what is your idea on this issue?


It sounds like your question is this:

_Some people want answers from native speakers only, but don't explicitly say so.  If I, a non-native speaker of the language in question, somehow know of their preference, should I still answer their questions?_

The bottom line is this:

Whether or not they make their desires explicit, you are not obligated to honor them. Anyone is welcome to answer any question, as long as they follow the forum rules. 

I think the question of "Whose answers are better, native speakers' or non-native speakers'?" is messy and complicated.  There's no simple answer: native speakers are not all created equal, and neither are non-native speakers.  There are native speakers who give misleading or confusing answers, and non-native speakers who give excellent ones.


----------



## Awwal12

Englishmypassion said:


> What do you do when you, as a non-native English speaker, receive PMs saying "Don't answer my questions/Don't post in my threads; I want native English speakers' answers"? Well, I'm not asking for no reason -- have you also received such personal messages? I'll tell you the names if you/moderators are interested and/or after _you_ name some.
> 
> I would like to know your response, especially the moderators'.


I've never recieved such messages. I suppose I would get slightly irritated, shrug my shoulders and follow the request. Most typically such people are not quite sane, and the best strategy of dealing with weirdos on the Internet is to keep as far away from them as possible. If the message were openly insulting, I'd be inclined to report it; that person is likely to send such messages to other forum member as well, which shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## rarabara

Awwal12 said:


> I've never recieved such messages. I suppose I would get slightly irritated, shrug my shoulders and follow the request.


hahaha   , I have also never received such messages. would not that be rather rude or touc act or even a bit entertaining to me with a slightly comic/ridiculous case. 

Assume this reply (from my colourful imagination) : hey hey you ! please don't make a reply to my question under my thread. don't you see I expect a reply from only native speakers ,I shall even be willing to kill you if you attempt to make a reply , please do not do that! puhahaha    


anyway, to @velisarius 
actually @elroy's comment clarifies the case well. but mine include no sign to understand the expectation of that user but after some conversations under that thread maybe you feel yourself like a bit not payed attention. 

I think, yes , as some users think I have abit tough personality but always polite & cordial at the same time. 
so, like @Awwal12  says I have also never taken such a message. as said , I am really polite one. 

Thanks.


----------

