Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:EAR

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

[edit] Tag use.

Is it acceptable to use the

Resolved.

tag on requests where appropriate? --Aarktica 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you're sure that the situation really is resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the timely reply. --Aarktica 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving unresolved requests.

Is it a good idea to archive requests which have yet to be definitively resolved? How do we measure the impact of our efforts? --Aarktica 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we can mark things resolved if no further action was requested, if the original problem brought by the requester was solved, or if the requester said "thanks, it's done". On the other hand, I'd like to propose a guideline for archiving -- I think we should archive discussions after they've been marked "resolved" or "stale" for 2-3 days, or 2-3 days after the last message posted if any were added after the "resolved" or "stale" tags were added. --Der yck C. 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposed change in protocol. --Aarktica 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So can you rewrite this and put it on the top of the requests page as a notice? --Der yck C. 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Aarktica 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methods.

Which archiving methods are to be used for resolved/stale requests? --Aarktica 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have two options: We could leave marked posts for a set number of days from the original date of posting - say, five days? - given the relatively low traffic. Otherwise, it might look under utilised, which can discourage new editors from using it. Move any that are resolved or stale after five days, leaving others in place. The other option is to archive them a set number of days after being marked, but that would entail checking the date of the marking unless we leave a timestamp next to each marking (although I noticed that you tend to do this anyway - very good idea!) Either option may occasionally result in one or two questions being archived out of their original order, but this should not happen very often with a five day gap (or similar duration) and should not present a major issue. Unless it presents unforeseen complications, I (just about) favour the latter method, but I'm happy either way. Adrian M. H. 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of the techniques mentioned in WP:ARCHIVE should we use toward this effort? Options available include cut/paste, move, and perma-link. --Aarktica 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have experience of "cut and paste". Adrian M. H. 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste it is; I will start moving tagged requests ASAP. The clutter could discourage others from seeking assistance. --Aarktica 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave things tagged for at least a day before archiving. --Der yck C. 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the note to assitants on WP:EAR: "A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days." J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Aarktica added that as part of the improvements that he made as a result of this discussion. Adrian M. H. 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't realize how old the timestamps are in this thread. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamlist

A link on the requests page, though I don't know which, is blocked by the spamlist. Therefore, the requests page currently cannot be saved in full-page form. Editors please use section edit. Of course, we hope somebody can find out the culprit and remove that link soon. --Der yck C. 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently archiving is done thread-by-thread. I hope the situation will improve soon. --Der yck C. 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! I got the culprit. --Der yck C. 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endless lists of WP Guidelines

Wikipedia guidelines are there to help us not fall foul of conflict edits. Guidelines have been constructed over time to offer editors a guide to avoiding potential problems. Unlike policy they are open to interpretation and sometimes don't cover the problem at hand.

[[WP]] offer editors a good shorthand way of directing other editors to a problem with their edits. However, with Ea/R we are dealing with editors who probably haven't had the time to study the guidelines and we seem to be refering them to the top of a page when the passage they need is a sentence long buried deep in the page.

Would it not be more helpful (as assistants) to quote the sentence and then refer them? A paragraph of 4 WP guideline links without an expaination is just us being lazy. I fall into the habit too and but some of the editors seem to explain policy with a simple explaination and a wikilink.

Ea/R is possibly the first port of call of some editors (certainly after a frustrating silence at Village Pump) and quite often the only editors who see all sides of the problem. Fobbing them off with a vague reference probably is unhelpful and isn't why we are here. Mike33 - t@lk 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I try to provide a brief nutshell explanation or at least put it in context, and I hope I succeed in doing that. You can tell me if I don't! I appreciate your point. But... I hope that whenever any editor is given a link to any WP advice page, they actually take the time to read it in full. If they do that but still don't understand it, they can ask for further clarification. Everyone should read them, with no exceptions. I periodically force myself to do the fairly boring task of re-reading Ps and Gs with which I had originally become familiar months ago, partly to refresh my fading memory and partly because some of the content is likely to have been altered. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be sure to provide more specific information when responding to requests. Fortunately, some of pages seem to have shortcuts sprinkled throughout (a la WP:EXPECT), which might be more appropriate for emphasis. --Aarktica 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am probably more culpable of fobbing off editors than either of you. It is my new goal not too ;-) Aarktica has a really great point that pinpoints one of the problems and that is directing them to the relevent explaination. When I get verbose I end up going far off subject trying to explain, but if we do pinpoint the real pearl we can be really helpful. The problem that most regular editors is we tend to be jack of all trades - I couldn't answer half of the problems with anything useful or helpful if I spent a two-week crash course.

What we do here is to the best of our knowledge directing editors. As I said above we are often the first contact they have with editors who can fix or explain or direct them. Its probably one of the most useful parts of wikipedia.

Back to Adrian, I don't think that every editor should know every guideline. (Try a Random game, Random, wiki the first wikilink and then the next and see how many you can find that don't meet guidelines). There are great useful articles that would fail guidlines everytime. If we can advise and help out on their articles that is so much better. Mike33 - t@lk 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that new editors should be familiar with every P and G; merely that they should take the time and make the effort to read as many of them as they possibly can and become familiar with the most commonly used Ps and Gs over the course of time. I appreciate that it is a progressive and evolutionary process. I find this common habit of turning up and immediately creating a new article without first reading anything (just check a few first edits against the account creation log) to be indicative of impatience, even a blase attitude to Wikipedia, and this is a perpetual pity. There was a month's gap between the creation of my account and the date of my first article, which was the creation of Jamie Green. That approach worked well and has influenced my opinion of how WP is best approached initially. I have no answer for how new editors may be encouraged to take this more measured and proactive approach, although I occasionally encounter editors who have done so. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When I created my first article it was because it wasn't there. Little Mikey it was written so badly, I cringe now. It was quickly wikied by an editor who gave me a welcome. He explained the things wrong with my article and G posted some {{fact}} later that afternoon. For most editors who contribute on a few articles, I don't think it is important to know more than the basics. I don't think we should push it. Ea/R is not a mentoring service but it certainly shouldn't be a flea in your EAR. Mike33 - t@lk 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they don't need to know eveything by any stretch – and I have yet to encounter an editor who does. As I say, it's a gradual process, but we have to show some responsibility towards the project by having a willingness to learn when we encounter something that we either should know or now need to know because of an emerging scenario (for me, that is still ongoing). I agree with you that we should all remember to give a clear "nutshell" of what we are citing, but hopefully, newer editors won't always take our word as gospel and will check it. Adrian M. H. 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While we should give assistees a basic "nutshell" summary of what we're trying to say, I think it will be of better use to them down the road if we provide the actual article. Lots of guidelines also have a "This Page in a nutshell" box at the top that basically summarizes the point of the article. But I do agree that we should do our best to, where applicable, provide a basic summary of our point, instead of beating them with policies. But If I see something that vios something like WP:COI, I'll refer them to the article. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An FAQ?

We often have questions that relate directly to external links, deleted articles, reverted edits, and difficulties in disputes. I was considering whether some form of FAQ sub-page would benefit the editors who come here for help and those of us who respond (we can use it as a reference). Something that gives some good, stock advice of which editors can make use, particularly if they are not too sure about whether to post a question. The Wikipedia:FAQ doesn't meet our needs as it is too pithy. Adrian M. H. 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We should make it more pointed rather than have an example question be "I want to know if my external link is acceptable. Where can I read up on this?" We just point it to WP:EL. Things should be more in depth, like "Why is my page up for deletion?" You know, things we have to put more in to than just giving a policy page and a nutshell. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Adrian M. H. 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have got as far as created a header at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/FAQ, our new FAQ page, so anyone who is up for helping me to add content, please join in! Adrian M. H. 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Archive

Hey, I saw an edit summary that said Aarktica was archiving some stuff. Recently, I had User:MiszaBot archive my talk page automatically. MiszaBot III is for user talk pages, but MiszaBot II archives wikipedia and wikipedia talk pages. Should we get this for EAR? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Shadowbot3 works better, I reckon. I have used MB2 before, but wasn't keen. But neither would work unless they can be configured to suit our archival patterns; ie, look for a {{resolved}} or {{stale}} tag of two days old or more. Might be possible; I'll have a word with their creators tomorrow. Adrian M. H. 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten days of staleness

I've seen someone marking things as stale before the ten-day threshold. Maybe we should officially change the threshold to maybe 5 days. Ten days seems like a long time. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's far too long and I have been meaning to raise the same point. I usually use it after about eight days, but I would prefer four or five. Adrian M. H. 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To accommodate requests from the occasional weekender, I would suggest a time window of six to eight days. --Aarktica 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems generous, but I'll go along with that as a middle ground. It's just that I'm one of those wikiholic types who, if I haven't edited for more than a few hours, you can assume that something terrible has happened. After about three or four days, I tend to assume that they're not coming back! Adrian M. H. 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Homeschooling has allowed me to be on wikipedia almost constantly! I say after 3-5 days of staleness, we can assume that the discussion has resolved itself. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we say 5 days as an absolute minimum, seven preferred, with room for using our judgment. Sometimes, when looking at contribs and article history, a fairly clear picture emerges, which can be an indicator in either direction. Adrian M. H. 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. _{(P.S. Thanks for participating at my RfA)} --Aarktica 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

_{What can I say? I think you deserved the mop :)} J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I wanted to wait for Aarktica's view first, and as we're all happy, we'll say five to seven days, with room for leaving it longer when deemed necessary. I have shied away from an RFA; it should stand for Really Frickin' Awkward. I participated in the recent RFC discussion, as J-Stan did too, but I don't envisage anything positive coming out of it. Adrian M. H. 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think much will change. It doesn't really seem necessary. I'm actually currently under admin coaching. We'll see what comes of it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are we?

Ok, so it seems that this page is being used for dispute resolution quite often. I just wanted clarity on whether to approach a dispute as something that should be dealt with here, or whether to refer it to dispute resolution. Just further clarity, what is the exact purpose of EAR? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We should not simply turn them towards DR. We should actively advise them about how to approach contact with other editors and how to settle things in the right way, remembering that they might also have policy/guidelines on their side (or against them) of which they are not aware. If an editor needs assistance with something, and we can help, then we should. We can always refer them elsewhere for issues or questions that we cannot answer. Adrian M. H. 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. We advise them on how to deal with a dispute, and DR actually resolves disputes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

No worries, J! Adrian M. H. 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In many cases (at least recently) the first thing to tell editors is discuss the problem at the article's talk page. It's surprising how few do that before starting DR. The second thing to tell them when they ask "who did that and why" is to click the article's History tab, find the editor who did it, then ask that editor "why?". If people would just look at the History, and start a discussion with other users on the Talk page, they wouldn't be coming here or to other places for DR. Sbowers3 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UTC clock

Would other Assistants find it helpful when archiving to have a UTC clock? What I usually find myself doing is typing five tildes, which brings up the current date and time, but I was wondering if using a real-time clock would help. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, J-Stan. If, by real-time clock, you mean those time expressions that some editors place on their user pages, those are dependent upon an empty cache to display accurately. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably just as easy to link here, which is not dependent upon caching (or a lack thereof). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I always had this problem too; not knowing the UTC time and all. I know a tiny bit of javascript, so I wrote this up over the summer: User:Arichnad/monobook.js (it will work even with caching and it even updates). You put it in your own subpage under User:USERNAME/monobook.js and it should display the UTC day and UTC time just to the right of the "log out" link. If anyone decides to use it, and it doesn't work, let me know. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I just input "importScript('User:Arichnad/monobook.js');" to my js file, and it worked. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't know about importScript. Can you change it to "importScript('User:Arichnad/utc clock.js'); //[[User:Arichnad/utc clock.js]]"? Thanks. That way I can change my monobook.js without affecting you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was almost going to ask you not to install Twinkle or something else so that I wouldn't get messed up :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EW upgraded to policy status

Just a quick note to assistants about the recent upgrade to the status of Wikipedia:Edit war. It looks like consensus is a little bit weak, so it might not stick long-term, but I think it's worth noting changes like this whenever they take place. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with resolved/stale templates

I just noticed that an editor ran into the minor syntax issue with these templates: If anyone else finds that their signature does not display correctly, it can be avoided by adding 1= between the pipe and the tildes. {{resolved|1=~~~~}} Adrian M. H. 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that out on the template's discussion page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] specialised archiving bot?

A specialised archiving bot would be a great thing. It could scan the page for section tagged as resolved / stale for 7 days without follow-ups and then auto-archive those sections. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to write a bot myself, so I filed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:51, December 2, 2007

Actually, only stale would be better, as it really takes humans to resolve issues. Just make note of the two-day period between tagging and archival. If it doesn't go through, we should at least write some sort of script. Also, nice to see you getting more active here :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean the bot should tag the sections itself, only archive them after they have been tagged for a while. ~~Maybe 2-3 days for resolved, 5 days for stale.~~ (ignore: 2 days is just fine, for both) And thanks! I dorftrottel I talk I 23:29, December 2, 2007

I see what you're saying. I read it as it would tag conversations as resolved or stale after 7 days, and then archive them. And you're welcome! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice to creators/advocates of deleted articles

Just a quick note to those of us offering advice to editors who come to this page after an article they created or have an interest in is deleted.

While we don't want to give people false hope, it's important for us (particularly but not exclusively those of us who aren't admins, therefore can't see the deleted content) to not be too negative when giving these folks advice; deletion review exists for a reason - namely that sometimes worthy articles are deleted in error, and if an editor comes here looking for help or advice we don't want to make it seem like they don't have a hope.

Yes, the vast majority of people who come here are beating a dead horse, but nevertheless we don't want to draw a conclusion about a topic without thoroughly investigating it, and we also should always suggest the option of deletion review. Anchoress (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I have put in a new archive box {{Editor assistance archives}}, based on the Admin Noticeboard archives. I thought it might be helpful as our archives grow, since the page seems to be pretty busy lately. Feel free to revert if you would rather go back to the standard archive box. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It took me a whole 30 seconds to figure out that this was the talk page. I saw that I was on the "Editor assistance/Requests" page, but the conversations were all old. "Why the heck is there a conversation from April that hasn't been archived?" I asked myself. ...Anyways. Yes, the new template looks great. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a Tag

Hello, I was advised by an editor to check here to see if it is OK to remove a tag from an article I wrote (good to have another party make the decision!). The editor seemed to think it was ok to remove, but wanted another opinion, thus I am checking here. Backgroud is on my talk page. If additional work is needed, I would really appreciate an example of a good, solid company article that I can look at (I've looked at a lot of company articles that really aren't very good - no citations, not well written, etc. I've tried to work on this article to make it objective but let me know if it still needs improvement). Thanks! Llcavall (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not acceptable to remove a tag you wrote just because you don't think it needs it. In this case, there was adequate discussion, plus a second opinion. If others agree that the problem brought up by the tag have been addressed, you can remove a tag. Side point: for future notice, please use the project page, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This page is for discussing improvements we can make with regards to that page, not for addressing the actual assistance requests. But we're glad to help wherever :) Justin^(c)_(u) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(moving to project page for further discussion.) Sbowers3 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editors looking for dispute resolution, more eyes on an article

It seems like a lot of editors come here looking for help with articles that are being WP:OWNed, etc. I often paste links to the three locations I know about that may be helpful, 1) Third opinion; 2) Request for comment; and 3) Any associated WikiProject, but I was thinking it might be good to create a template that would say the same thing - to make answering such queries shorter. I don't know how to make templates, and I also don't know if there are other locations on WP that should be included in the suggestion. Any help? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-archiving?

I think we should switch to letting MiszaBot auto-archive threads seven days after going stale. The following config feels about right:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 384
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader={{archive}}
}}

The whole thread-marking is another thing I believe is outdated. It's simply too tedious. Dorftrottel (bait) 16:31, March 15, 2008

I think thread marking is necessary, in order to help editors who want to help querents save time. It's voluntary, so only people who want to do something 'tedious' need do so. I was actually going to suggest an 'unanswered' template, to flag queries that have no replies after a certain period of time. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the templates helped out a lot when I was active here. And the unanswered template would be the same as the "Stale" template. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be? I thought stale was for a thread with no new activity for a certain period of time. 'Unanswered' would be for a question that had had no responses. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

I have tagged everything that appears to be resolved or sufficiently stale. Since much of it is from as much as a month ago, I will archive all the tagged threads tomorrow if no one objects, just to get the page back up to date. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplifying proposal

Here is an idea I had--why not, when we tag a request "stale" or "resolved," add "(stale)" or "(resolved)" to the heading title for the section? That way, we can look at the TOC and quickly see if there are any new requests or if they are all over. Let me know what you think. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see it as helpful. The TOC need not be further enlightened with extra elements surely. What is needed at the moment is a "drive" to get editors who have failed WP:RFA to work on this project. (a) It gives them experience of problems (b) It will actually let them see many sides of problems they probably haven't encountered before (c) It will hopefully get a huge backlog down 6-10 days is a joke with difficult problems, with at the most 10 editors replying a week with over 70 editors listed as watchers?

EAR is probably the first encounter editors have with ideas or a non-partisan view. It is possibly the first chance editors have where policy and guidelines are explained in a way they can understand.

My choice is to invite failed Rfa candidates to help out here, clear the backlog and leave thread heading alone. -- BpEps - t@lk 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you modify the header of a section at the time that it's resolved, that means that old section links saved in other discussions (or in edit and contribution histories) stop working. That alone I think is a good enough reason not to do it. (The WP:AN/3RR noticeboard has this problem, and I hope they eventually fix it). EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, good points, guys; I understand completely. Thanks for considering anyway! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change from User Status please?

My page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erastes

Now I've had three novels, and over 20 short stories published, and have sold my fourth novel to Perseus Books - may I please have my own page as do other novelists who write the same genre such as Steve Berman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Berman

Erastes (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you show me some multiple reliable, third-party sources that are non-trivial I'll take a looksee and think about it. From the sounds of it, however, you don't meet our notability guideline, sorry. -- Naerii 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. What about my work is trivial? I have many non-vanity publishing credits. I don't self publish. I've never published with a vanity press, ever. I have published short stories with Alyson Books (many times) Cleis Press, MEN Magazine. PD Publishing, Linden Bay Romance are bona fide print publishers. Standish has been in the gay bestseller lists on Amazon since publication. Perseus Books is a multi-national mainstream publisher who are going to be putting my books into bookstores all over the world. What sources do you need? Should I get Perseus to send you an email? Do you want a copy of my contract?

Erastes (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not need to see anything of that sort. What we are looking for is reliable, third-party sources (e.g., newspaper, magazine articles, substantial reviews, etc) through which others (i.e., not you or your publisher) attest to your notability. Follow this link and this link to read some about what we mean on wikipedia by reliable sources and notability. It also wouldn't hurt to read up on our thoughts on conflicts of interest and auto-biographical articles. You are, I believe, following the right path by not creating the article yourself. Generally, when thinking about one's own place on wikipedia, a good rule of thumb is that if you (or any individual) is notable, chances are that someone (other than yourself, the publisher, or a pr person) would create the article without any encouragement from you - otherwise this project ceases to be an encyclopedia and becomes a venue for self-promotion and advertising. Pastordavid (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banner ad?

For those of you who like banner ads (WP:BANNER), I created one for EAR. Check it out and let me know if you have any complaints before I include it in the banner template. Or let me know it you think it sucks that EAR has a banner ad. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite like it although a bit of color wouldn't go amiss. It seems to sum up the vast majority of why editors come here. I'd hate to see it on Jimbo's page though. Can you just imagine the backlog after that? -- EhsanQ (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed Requests

I have broadband but the page takes ages to load and it is really difficult to edit. Wikipedia pages over 100kb rule out usability and access. If editors are going to mark issues as definitely resolved can they not be archived a day or two after? -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Instructions for marking a thread resolved or stale are at the top of the page. When using the templates {{resolved}}, {{stale}} or {{stuck}}, please add your signature so that a clear date is on there. I will do an archive run today. Pastordavid (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The syntax for the templates (resolved, stuck, stale) is

 {{resolved|1=Comment if nexessary. ~~~~}}

Threads should only be marked as resolved if you are reasonably certain that it is indeed resolved to the satisfaction of the original poster. Stale is used if a thread has sat for 5-7 days, and it appears that no further comment is forthcoming. Stuck is used when answers have been attempted, but without any progress. Threads are archived after being tagged for at least two days (thus the need for a time stamp). Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just tagged about 30 of the current 70 requests with one template or another. In the interest of readability, I may archive a little sooner than usual. It is very helpful for archiving if assistants regularly tag threads as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went through the other day and tagged a bunch - quite a lot of that backlog is stuff that can really be removed as resolved or stale. It never occurred to me that adding a timestamp would help archiving, though. I'll do that from now on. Fleetflame 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've noticed that the page hasn't been automatically archived for a while. I don't know too much about MiszaBot, but looking at the template at the top of the page, isn't it instructing the bot to archive items that are 90 days old? In which case, that's far too long, surely? --Beloved Freak 10:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)