Wikipedia talk:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Help desk page.
edit
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Help Desk horizon

How many days prior to today do you think should remain before being archived? The reason for this question is so that the parameters for the upcoming archiving bot can set. This is not a "forever" decision but our best guess for a starting point. My own review indicates that there are virtually no responses to a question posed more than three days ago and so accordingly, I've removed (archived) all but three days prior. In a perfect world, there would be a deeper horizon that we'all could just skim through or ignore or just start from the bottom of the page and go up from there. In the real world however, the folks with less than optimal bandwidth (say, dial-up) are burdened with unnecessarily long load times and so we need to compromise between the two. I've posted this question at the HD so as to gather more input and have requested that comments be posted here. --hydnjo talk 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It was confusing to see the message saying you have archived all the topics more than three days old, yet messages four days before that message were still there. Until WP gets better discussion software, there's no good answer. I might be on the computer, ask a question here, then not get back to my WP for another week. Should occasional users not ask for help? But keeping discussion around long enough for that is unwieldy. The bot should look at the timestamps from the ~~~~, and archive based on the most recent date in each thread. In theory, a discussion from a month ago could keep going that way, but that doesn't seem to be the way this page works, and if it does, what's wrong with it? As for the amount of time, I say three days from most recent message, but if you can only do it based on the age of the root of the thread it needs to be longer.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Time passes and I've added new date headers but archiving is still a work in progress so the page will lengthen. Your archiving suggestion has merit but I don't think that the archiving bot has the capability of examining the response timestamps. The bot would also be confounded by the lack of a timestamp on way too many questions and answers which is why it has been designed to key off of the date headers. --hydnjo talk 03:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: The questions moved from the active HD are always available at the archives and I agree that there should be a provision for questions with persistance beyond the archiving horizon. Perhaps a Previous questions still active section could be added at the top of the page which is ignored by the bot and is dealt with manually (both added-in and archived). --hydnjo talk 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the bot was set to 'three days from most recent' last I checked. --ais523 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is and that seems like a reasonable compromise. Page length is resonable and haven't noticed any activity on the date to be archived next. --hydnjo talk 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?

Not directly related to the help desk, but between the number of times this question comes up here, and the sorts of editors likely to congregate here, I'd like a moment to announce that a new Wikipedia page has been created to try and help editors figure these things out. It was just made tonight -- if anybody sees ideas for improvement, please don't hesitate to be bold and help beef it up a bit! Luna Santin 06:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine too my MonoMetro page was deleted why? I have seen worst stubs here and I think its a subject Wikipedia should cover, Shouldn't more time be given for improvements rather then these hasty deletes?Oxyman 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this entry was meant as an opportunity to vent about deleted pages. You'd be better off visiting the link and perhaps discussing it on the talk page there. Kesh 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RefDeskBot Archives: Caution

Cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Just a couple of things to look out for to ensure that the archiving goes through with smoothly. There are a couple things that will confuse the bot at the moment, but they're easy to prevent if we're paying attention.

  1. Make sure every question has a proper title.
    Do not allow non-titled text to sneak in below the date header. If somebody adds a question without a title tag, give it one. Not doing so will currently make the archives pretty messy.
  2. Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. = November 13 =, just to be on the safe side.
  3. Do not change the number of days transcluded, or move around the links to the transcluded pages. If you want to suggest an extension or shortening of the transclusion time, talk to Martin so that the bot doesn't get confused again.
  4. Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
  5. Add <nowiki></nowiki> tags or codify HTML/scripts in article titles to keep the archive indexes from screwing up. Normal Wikilinks are OK.

If a couple people keep an eye out for these things there should be no problems : )!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John D. Thompson

United States Senate Scholar and Pulitzer Prize-nominee poet John D. Thompson is the author of 5 books of poetry including, Tender Revolutions, Epiphany, winner of the Iowa Chapbook Award, and 99 Voices, 99 Lives: County Poems of Iowa, a seminal book of poems and project in which the poet wrote a poem in each of Iowa's 99 counties over a 2-year period,using county-seat libraries as a base. A member of Mensa, Thompson is considered one of the finest rhyme and form poets in America. Thompson is the inventor of triskaidekic verse, 13 lines, 13 syllables per line, in the poem, Heart as Sponge, 2002. Thompson is the recipient of the Finch and Rose Poetry Prize, given to a native-born Iowan for achievement in literature through Iowa-themed writings.

[edit] John D. Thompson

United States Senate Scholar and Pulitzer Prize nominee, John D. Thompson, is the author of 5 books of poetry, including Tender Revolutions, Epiphany, recipient of the Iowa Chapbook Award, and 99 Voices, 99 Lives: County Poems of Iowa, a seminal book of poems in which the poet traveled the state of Iowa for 2 years, writing a poem in each of the state's 99 counties. Considered one of America's finest contemporary rhyme poets, Thompson received the Finch and Rose Poetry Prize for his work on county poems and fusion of Iowa history with language. Thompson is a member of MENSA.Statepoetpro 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)November 21, 2006

uh... what's your point? Cbrown1023 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you have managed to find yourself on the discussion page for the Wikipedia Help Desk, a resource to ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what your intent is, but I think you might want to take a look at the Introduction or Wikipedia:Your first article. Welcome, and good luck! —Keakealani 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested new step for asking question

Something I think might be useful to add in the instructions for people asking a question: "If you are asking a question relating to a specific article, please name that article in your question so that the context is understood." Probably somewhere close to the currently bolded instruction. Confusing Manifestation 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be an idea - a fair few requests come through from people, without them mentioning the specific situation they're talking about. But on the other hand, a 10-second search through their contributions will usually give you the relevant info. I don't really mind either way about an addition. Trebor 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a problem except when people talk about deleted articles; it's important to have a reference in such cases, because the contribs won't show anything up. It would save a small amount of time even for bluelinks, though. --ais523 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign

Could anyone check the blue box at the top of the page? I mean that the text is not clear.

--Meno25 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And do what with it? (I amssuming you are talking about the archives icon). ViridaeTalk 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the following sentence is not clear: Ask questions about how to use Wikipedia. (Note that I am using Firefox under Windows XP). The word Wikipedia overlaps with the two words questions and about. Maybe we need to use a smaller font.
--Meno25 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It broke for me as well, but only when I set my browser to an abnormally large font size. I've fixed it (hopefully) by putting a bit of CSS in that only applies when it wraps to the second line; does it work for everyone now? --ais523 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
On my browser it looks fine too me. — Seadog 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper criteria

What is the standard protocol for adding a website to an article as an external link without being accused of spamming wikipedia, vandalizing articles, or infringing upon previously external links that administrators have paced within the article to promote their own sites, and yes I can prove that to be the case!

Thanks in advance to unbiased/impartial editors, 69.167.97.81 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the process step-by-step as I would do it.
  1. Check the article and your link to make sure that your link is relevant. If it isn't, don't bother.
    • The primary Wikipedia guideline exists at Wikipedia:External links
    • You can ask on the talk page to see if other editors would mind the addition of the external link.
    • If possible, use the link with a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> setup to reference a statement in the article. This usage is ideal if used appropriately.
  2. Add the article in the external links section with the format [http://www.example.com/foo descriptive caption] "any notes"
  3. Use a good edit summary describing your edit.
By the way, I recommend that you get an account - logged-in users are generally treated with more respect in regard to potential vandalism. Nihiltres 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove links were added for self-promotion, do so on the article's talk page. Regardless, even if you can prove others have done so, your own links must be able to stand on their own merit. Kesh 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I shall create an account, yet this in this situation I have been perceived as a spammer, which is utterly rediculous because I had nothing to gain by requesting to add the external link that was ultimatly never included.
Bottom line, I understand you people deal with a massive volume of spammers, vandals, hate propagandists, and self-promoters on wikipedia, yet in your crusaide of fairness you crucify honest inexperienced contributers who make a mere rookie error. I want to know what makes certain individuals "Wikipolice" while many of thier edits to articles clearly convey biases and "POV" slants, while the newbies are verbally abused for seeking consensus on adding a pertianant link to an article.
There is a trend upon wikipedia of persecuting descent people while facilitating blatent racists to "doctor up" the image of notorious bigots. Just review the past 500 edits to the David Duke biography alone. Constant revisions, omission of factual information, and the revision of truth results in a constant edit war among three parties, the xenophobes, excessive liberals, rational people who find valid evidence of a Ku Klux Klan history and still find themself in a debate whether or not David Duke should be placed in a Ku Klux Klan catagory.
It is almost humorous to me that you waste your time chasing me for posting messages on talk pages, while wikipedia is being used as a vehical to spread nonsensical and unmistakable latent hate speech.
Sorry for the rant, yet I think it is time some of you Wikipedia aficianatos utalize your talents to combat an occourance of diproportional misuse as opposed to hollering at me for doing what I thought was right.
P.S. I would greatly appreciate a realistic responce instead of a one sentence replay telling me I am a bumbling idiot for posting this material here.
Thank you,
  • 69.167.97.81 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under a misunderstanding. People tend to edit what they're interested in. Some folks who were watching the article you attempted to add a link to felt it was inappropriate and deleted it. They then noticed you had added the same link to many other articles, which is a tactic most often seen by spammers. No one personally attacked you, but they were concerned that your behavior appeared to be something we've seen a lot here.
Second, controversial articles such as the David Duke one are going to attract people who argue vehemently for either side, leaving actual neutral parties acting as referrees and janitors to clean up the mess. However, just because controversial articles exist does not mean people drop everything and concentrate on those. There are thousands of people editing Wikipedia, and those who are more knowledgable about the controversial topics are better suited to monitoring them for vandalism. As an added point, WIkipedia does not censor subjects. Unfortunately, this does allow bigoted and racist elements to exist in articles, as those items are documented and part of history (as in the case of David Duke). We have to take the good with the bad here, while maintaining a neutral point of view.
Lastly, your own comments are rather impolite, which does not encourage others to help you. Talking about "wasting time" and misconstruing short answers as calling you an "idiot" are not conducive to dialogue.
I do hope you stick around and help contribute to Wikipedia. But, one of the first rules here is that you have to have a tough skin. People will edit your work, you will be criticized and some people will be rude. That's what happens when you get thousands of anonymous people working on the same project. Just stick with it, and I think you'll find it worthwhile. -- Kesh 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/l/Wikipedia_talk%7EHelp_desk_eb91.html"