Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 21

message: Help!  All the QAs for the above date have vanished into the ether, just as I was about to tackle a question on the Avignon Popes!  I'm not quite sure what to do to set about restoring this date.  Can anyone help?  Clio the Muse 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's come back!  Thanks for taking the trouble, whoever you are.  Clio the Muse 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe thanks are owed to Kjoonlee for fixing RDB's New Year drunkenness :) Martinp23 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is 30 December? 

message: Probably not the proper place for this but can an admin edit WP:RD and change  to ? --⁪frothT C 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the talk page is the correct place to request a change to a protected page.  In any case, done. -- SCZenz 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right thanks --⁪frothT C 08:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin housecleaning please 

message: I moved this from the science desk.  Please add further discussion to the section called "further discussion" below the box. -- SCZenz 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that my own explanation is in the "further discussion" section as well. -- SCZenz 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion from the Science ref desk.  Please discuss further outside this box, if necessary, so we can be clear on what was on the ref desk proper and which discussion was on the talk page. -- SCZenz 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved section 

message: DEAR LORDS:
MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE ANCIENT ATLANTIS IS ?
MY NAME IS SEEDPLANTER....HOW DO I FIND YOU ANSWER ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedplanter (talk • contribs) 
DEAR LORDS:
PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR MY POOR SPELLING and typing,
I AM RETIRED FROM PAYING TAXES AND MY COMPUTER IS
MY NEW ADVENTURE.
         DO I READ YOUR ANSWER ON THE BOTTOM OF THE
         PAGE ? ......SEEDPLANTER
:I am not sure this is a serious question, please clarify, or if you would like to ask a question, go ahead. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Year's Fools!  --Bowlhover 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't want to see the proof if it is written in all capitals or with silly indentation. --Kainaw (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to see the proof no matter what.  Please, Seedplanter, amuse us.  --Bowlhover 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seedplanter has been warned for vandalism on Atlantis on his talk page -- WikiCheng | Talk 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree this is best left well alone, though it occurs to me that the proofs for the existence of Atlantis probably come from the same intellectual stable as those for, say, Elephants' Graveyards.  Clio the Muse 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect "Atlantis" would have been the best answer, and then ignore everything else. Carcharoth 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantis

message: *X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: :Seedplanter has been warned for vandalism on Atlantis on his talk page -- WikiCheng | Talk 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: I didn't think this section was worth worrying about, at first, but then the joke went on and on.  Now there was even meta-discussion of whether the section should be deleted on the reference desk itself.  Under the circumstances, it seemed best to move it here.  If you really think it's amusing to ask more about this, consider taking it to User talk:Seedplanter. (Although I personally don't think that's a good idea either.) -- SCZenz 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is best left well alone, though it occurs to me that the proofs for the existence of Atlantis probably come from the same intellectual stable as those for, say, Elephants' Graveyards.  Clio the Muse 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect "Atlantis" would have been the best answer, and then ignore everything else. Carcharoth 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: A question was mistakenly placed here.  I have moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Blood question and replied there. -- SCZenz 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood question moved 

message: The graybox links to the various Reference Desks is currently formatted to be one line and as wide as the monitor. On not-very-wide monitors, that means there is virtually no space between the links...hard to distinguish them, or even recognize them as individual links at all. Adding more space (or even using a just-below-average monitor size) causes the link box to be wider than the whole page, requiring sideways scrolling. Ugh! Would it be better to allow the list of links to wrap as normal text instead of a line of cells:
{| style="background: #eee; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa" align=center width=100%	
{| style="background: #eee; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa" align=center width=100%	Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
Or at least use two lines of cells instead of one, if the goal is to spread the links evenly across the whole intro?
{| style="background: #eee; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa" align=center width=100%	
{| style="background: #eee; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa" align=center width=100%	Science      	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives   	            	
DMacks 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like how it looks right now with a 1200 pixel wide window (1400x1050, with firefox "Restore"d) but I can definately understand how this could be a problem with smaller screens. Plus it gives room for expansion, eh fresh? ;) --⁪frothT C 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD links line is wide and poorly spaced 

message: This is surely a rather inane topic, but I'm not at all sure it's not the most substantive issue to have been raised here in weeks. :) In any event, because editors rarely happen upon the RD header talk page, I imagine I ought to leave a note here apropos of a discussion of the formatting of the desk descriptors I've begun at such talk page; if anyone is particularly interested (i.e., is as idiosyncratic as I), his/her happening by would be much appreciated.  Joe 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm stumped! Follow the link above to see why. I've tried to show the current header above a (proposed by Joe) new header but ran into trouble getting out of the current header box. Help?  --hydnjo talk 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Canderson7, you fixed it.  :-)  --hydnjo talk 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So, back to the original question: there is no problem whatsoever in bringing up suggestions for improvement and there should also be no problem if your suggestion isn't acted upon. I hope that you keep a close eye on everything that you see on WP  and provide feedback on your observations. Criticism has always been the foundation of change around here. Thanks for your suggestion and we'll see if others pick up on it. --hydnjo talk 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Majuscules|Capitalization]] and [[ampersand]]s in desk descriptors in [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header|header]]

message: For same question, see Wikipedia talk:Help desk. THis will probably apply to other pages as well. Simply south 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Dates.  --hydnjo talk 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I have just posted a question back in the Reference desk and after looking at my edit I notice tha question in front of mine, titled: "Homesteading help, please? " Is this normal? It is nonsense and a waste of space. I would ask it to be deleted. Francisco Valverde 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're the one in the wrong place.  Your question belongs on the Help Desk, not the Ref Desk, as another person stated in response to your question.  The "Homesteading help, please ?" question is entirely appropriate for the Ref Desk, although rather long and poorly formatted (I fixed that).  The Help Desk is for questions about Wikipedia while the Ref Desk is for questions about anything except Wikipedia.  StuRat 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops! Sorry! Francisco Valverde 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this normal? 

message: I don't know if someone does it manually or if its done by a bot, however, the porblem lies here.
All Question before December 31 have been archived.
However this is not being done for Jan 1, 2007 on all reference desks, and now they are exploding in size.
Furthermore the new Entertainment desk has never been archived.
What I mean by archive is you know once archived . --Jones2 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a problem. Can anyone remember who set up the archiving process (is is done by a bot?) Carcharoth 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's User:RefDeskBot.  I have left a message for the operator at User talk:Martinp23. StuRat 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Carcharoth 06:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I've been setting up a box for it to run on, so when it catches up and I can get the entertainment desk ready, we should be good to go, with the bot running properly. Martinp23 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entertainment is now coded in, and up to date. Also, all of the other desks should now be up to date with archivals. By the way, WP:RD/E has an archival time (ie - dates are taken off the page) of 7 days - will this be OK, or do you want the 3 day option? Martinp23 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 day option. thnx. besides unanswered question can be put at the bottom it says above the desks.--Judged 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it to be the 3 day option on all desks (including the traditionally less popular ones?).  Go back to the start, the bot was originally designed to do 7 day archives, but for the 3 most popular desks 3 day archives were introduced (causing some complaints at the time).  I'd like to get a firm consensus on the issue before I make it final in the bot coding - so - any more opinions?  Delma1 has just been and taken off the earlier days from all the desks (taking them all to Jan 5), which will cause the bot to crash, so I'm going to have to revert.  If the dates do need changing, the bot should be able to remove the excess ones automaticaly IIRC. Martinp23 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay how about this: Humanities, Science and Misc are very popular. So for them 3 days, others 7 days. What do you think? --Foundby 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just wondering how can the bot crash? --Foundby 13:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how it is now :). The bot will get an "arguement out of range exception" and die if the dates it's looking for aren't there. There's no point in me coding around this, because it can't archive the desk anyway when dates are missing (and if they've been removed by mistake, the bot can be run again later). Martinp23 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a strange proble, which I've not been able to pin down (sorry!).  It is probably to do with what actually gets through when Wikipedia returns a 502 bad gateway error, the distorted comms producing that junk.  Martinp23 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Desk Problem 

message: Hey everyone, I just noticed that the links in the archive pages e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 3 are stuffed, to get to the next/previous month/day, it goes to the page of the current year when it should go to 2006. Anyone have a bot that can fix all this? --WikiSlasher 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this problem, there seems to be an issue with the templates that the bot uses.  I lack the know-how to fix them (they weren't designed by me in the start), but I suspect a request at WP:BOTREQ and some corrected templates will be able to correct the issue.  At a guess, there is perhaps a missing "subst:" or two in the templates (the help desk appears to have the same issue). Martinp23 11:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mention this a while back, but it got buried in an archive somewhere.  Essentially I'd assumed someone would have fixed it before 2007. The only thing I can think of to fix it now is to use a bot to go back through all the archives and correct the glitch by adding 2006 after every instance of  otherwise it will default to CURRENTYEAR. This is my fault since I more or less created the problem in the first place by incorporating the autodate feature into the old template, and since the new template copied all its date math from the old template, the error was copied over. At the time I was trying to handle all desk maintenance single handedly and settled for a template that worked, as opposed to one that would continue to work. The only way to prevent the same thing from happening again in 2008 is to recode the template to ask for a year input from the bot --VectorPotential 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been corrected, the only thing is the bot must now use this format 
 -- VectorPotential 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I'll adjust the bot code for that.  Unfortunately though, RefDeskBot has no architecture to make such changes - at some point I'll try to get MartinBotIII to do it.  Did that template add all the pages to a category? Martinp23 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you use the subst before the template, any edits done will not be done on the actual template, so then the archive will be useless. Do you get me? This is regarding using subst on the current ref desk page in the archive template. --Foundby 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the templates as they are now, subst is needed in order to make the date resolve properly - the downside is that the fixes made to the templates today now need to be manually replicated across all the previous archive days, requiring a bot (probably).  I should be able to get MartinBotIII to fix it at some point. Martinp23 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is too much trouble, we could maybe fix it by hand, if we each took on a month, and changed all occurences  of CURRENTYEAR to 2006.  That would be a global search and replace on some 180-210 pages each, that wouldn't be too bad. StuRat 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking - I can probably just use AWB to get all the pages with the prefix for the archives (whatever that is now) and set the bot on auto mode to go through an correct all uses of CURRENTYEAR (presuming this is the problem).  I'll do some stuff now to test if it would work. Martinp23 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, it's a bit more complicated than all that, the template used several instances of  which needs to be changed to  for instance, which should only be done by hand if you're very used to that form of meta variable. The best solution might be to remove all headers, and re-subst the new version of the template onto each page--VectorPotential 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing (I think) is for the bot to subst all the instance of #time (which it's doing now), then I can have the bot go through all the pages again and replace all instances of 2007 before a certain point with 2006.  it seems to be working - take a look at 's contribs. Martinp23 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that should work -- VectorPotential18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it should work. But unfortunately last year was 2006, not 2007. I'm glad this has been responded to - but it'd be nice if it was done right ;) --WikiSlasher 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have patience - the bot needs to do two runs - sone substing (which gets the wrong year) and then one find and replace. Have faith! Martinp23 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set the default year, 2007 to 2007 so in the event that a 4th parameter isn't entered, it defaults to 2007. -- VectorPotential 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I think that the bot should be putting that parameter in anyway.  All the isses from last year sohuld now be fixed, thanks to MartinBotIII. Martinp23 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One small problem, your corrections only seem to go back to October 16th, but the same date math was in use all the way back to October 9th, I assume the issue is that they fall under a different subheading so the bot missed them-- VectorPotential 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Urgh - must be something from testing back then.  I shall perform the moves when all the pages are fixed. Martinp23 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks, much appreciated ! StuRat 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD 2006 archive navigation screwed! 

message: Just one minor question, shouldn't Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computers and technology/2006 October 14 be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2006 October 14? -- VectorPotential 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urgh - must be something from testing back then.  I shall perform the moves when all the pages are fixed. Martinp23 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computers and technology? October 12 <--> 17 

message: I've clicked through all the archives, and manually corrected for all the various gaps and missing days, so that you can click all the way back through the archives to October 16th uninterupted -- VectorPotential 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks, much appreciated ! StuRat 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining Navigation Holes 

message: Is it to be the 3 day option on all desks (including the traditionally less popular ones?). Going back to the start, the bot was originally designed to do 7 day archives, but for the 3 most popular desks 3 day archives were introduced (causing some complaints at the time). I'd like to get a firm consensus on the issue before I make it final in the bot coding - so - any more opinions? Martinp23 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may make a note: Three days mean that there are 3 days of questions and today (so 4 active days on the desk).  So this would be January 4th onwards as of my timestamp (the bot runs by UTC/GMT/Z). Martinp23 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *From past experience, the bot will put the date header in the right place every midnight. I'm trying to manually fix any incorrect headers until RDbot is running smoothly. Feel free to do the same if you spot any errors.  --hydnjo talk 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, as the code won't be changed today, at least, I'm going to put the bot on the always-on box, so hopefully we'll be able to get largely back to normal. Martinp23 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, I agree that it might be a page loading problem for some users and in consideration of those folks I have no problem with a three plus today horizon for those busy desks. My comment below was more of an idealistic wish-for. If several others chime in with a desire for a five plus today solution well, lets hear them out. If that isn't the case then I would definitely prefer discriminating (rather than three for all) which defaults to my second choice: 3&7 as I have stated below.  --hydnjo talk 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Essjay has even been asked to do this. See archives here. I agree it is the best strategy since only the inactive questions get archived. This is much better than have an arbitrary number of days. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could just note here - it may be helpful to know that RefDeskBot does to actually make navigation of the archives easier.  First there are the templates (which will be fully working very soon) but the best thing about it is that, despite the pitfalls of the current system, it is a lot more kind to questioners than an EssjayBot/Werdnabot system.  The benefit of the Essjaybot system is that questions are only archived when not touched for a certain number of days - so questions with active discussion won't be "taken off" the page (in fact, it's transclusion, but the cureent system does break watchlisting for registered users).  RefDeskBot is often touted as the "date adding" bot, which I confess does annoy me, so I'm going to give a quick rundown of what it does.  First, it gets all the questions from the day before yesterday (this is at 0:00 ish) and adds them to a daily archive page.  It then grabs the section titles from this page and adds them to the monthly listing: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/January_2007, before transcluding the archive page onto the desk.  This monthly page is the "good bit", as it's easier for someone with a slow interent connection to look through that one page containing 30 days of questions (at the end of the month), than to load up 30 full pages of questions and answers.  Of course, although it would be possible for me to make the bot only transclude those questions which have had no activity for (x) days, this would wreck the whole monthly archival system.  The best way I can see to make RDB more mutually satisfiable (the issue seemingly being the mass removal of questions) would be to change the number of days before a page is transcluded.  Out of interest - does anyone have any information on just how many people have actually been adversely affected by the current system (where today and yesterday's questions are still active on the desk which the others are transcluded)?  Just on a final note - if you look through the archives you'll see that discussions about "why" for the tranclusions are common (fairly common), and it has been determined that it is to keep the Wikitext length short for those with slow internet who may get an edit conflict and wait a long time for the edit box to reload.  Now, it would be easy for me to stop the bot from doing transclusions, and just remove and archive the day after, say, 3/4 days, but then people would complain about the desks being too big.  You can see where I'm stuck, and I have only built the bot to the design specifications given by freshgavin.  It seems that the ref desk needs to sort out what its priorities for archiving are - page size or watchlist convenience - the current solution can be adjusted to either (whereas I suspect that w/EssjayBot/WerdnaBot, the date headers may have to go, and the pages will probably become longer, and navigation unwieldy).  Thanks for reading :) Martinp23 13:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I recently used the archives to look up some very old questions that I asked, and found them relatively painlessly. The watchlist thing did confuse me for a moment, especially as I thought that adding more stuff to archived questions isn't the done thing, but then I realised that other people who have the question watchlisted would still see my answers. I'm still not entirely clear though. Does the transclusing archiving mean that questions appear in both the archives and the desk at the same time? Carcharoth 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - the bot puts the older days into their own archive pages, which are then transcluded onto the desk for the remaining day or 4 days of their time there.  Im sure that someone will be able to better explain it than me - the best thing to to is look at RefDeskBot's contribs. Martinp23 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Day consensus 

message: Is anyone else bothered by the RD (main) order of the reference desks: /C, /S, /Ma on the header (top line) being different from the desk "address bar" list having /S, /Ma. /C.? I find myself being confused when I need to travel all of the desks for maintenance. 
OK, if you don't care which I change then no comment is needed. If on the other hand you have a preference as to which I change then now is the time to speak up.  If no one objects, then I intend to change the main header. The main RD would then have the order: /S, /Ma, /C and would then be consistent  with the order at the common desk address bars.  --hydnjo talk 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey we have to be consistent, one day someone'll find out and we'll be the laughing stock of the entire Wikiland! --WikiSlasher 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I'm going for at least 24 hours for comment (maybe 48 hours if controversial).  --hydnjo talk 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of desks

message: I implemented some quick 'n' dirty changes to DMacks's proposal and now it tells you with a big colorful box what desk you're on. Seven Fourteen #if statements is definately not the way to do it so somebody please optimize! It's a pity we don't have two more desks, it would be perfectly spaced --⁪frothT C 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty! DMacks 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, thanks --⁪frothT C 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD header changes 

message: I moved the following to here, since it was just an abusive non question. Should I have left it or just deleted without moving? Edison 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move sounds good, so long as you left a link so they can find it here. StuRat 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly demo what such a link would look like. Edison 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, leave the title and replace the text with the following:
This post did not contain a question, but rather a complaint, so has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#You_suck. StuRat 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Misc to here

message: Maybe we should make a new desk named Archive on the RD template so if people want review the archive before asking it would be cool. --Foundby 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last word of the first paragraph on Wikipedia:Reference desk is a link to the archives.  --hydnjo talk 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well cant we have a picture for that too? --Foundby 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the skeleton of an librarian, wearing horned-rim glasses (with chains), with her bony finger on the open page of a massive, dusty, ancient tome, staring pensively at the page, with assorted spider webs between the skeleton, book, and desk. :-) StuRat 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ya gonna get to pose for it?  And how will we know its a woman?8-)--Light current 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the horned-rimmed glasses with chains are for. :-) StuRat 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I know some men who wear those! (Not many I'll admit) 8-)--Light current 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it doesn't work at small sizes. I've created a relatively simple image (right), based on the other images, of a clock (representing that these are past questions). Laïka 16:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archives or historical things are always, of course, represented by a sundial. I dont know why.--Light current 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a very, very thick, shut book? --⁪frothT C 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh well I suppose  a clock is the modern equivalent of a sundial!--Light current 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often thought that Windows shouldn't use a clock cursor to show it's working, but should use a calendar icon instead. :-) StuRat 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion NEw Desk 

message: Presently the whole of January 5 is duplicated. Can someone knowledgeable of the reference desk-system fix this? And also I'd like to know what went wrong? Was it my fault? --Alf 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry in which desk? --Jones2 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was science and has been fixed. Sorry for the ambiguousity. --Alf 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 5 has been duplicated 

message: I am starting this new section rather than the point being lost in the noise of the best guess section above. 
Discussion taken from from Answering with best quesses 
....my answers stand by their merit not by my qualifications.  That goes for all who contribute here, and quite a few are questioning the merit of some of your [StuRat] answers. David D. (Talk) 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only deletionists, not OPs, and those are the people whose opinions I most value. StuRat 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they trust your answers, how would they know if you were wrong? David D. (Talk) 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was wrong, then there should be evidence presented showing that.  If there is no evidence that I was wrong, then they have no reason to believe that I was, and neither do you. StuRat 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: " If there is no evidence that I was wrong, then they have no reason to believe that I was, and neither do you"
How is this helping the OP?  A better policy would be in the form of "if the answer is not verifiable then they have no reason to believe".  StuRats argument seems to be at odds with the importance placed on verfiability by wikipedia and academic institutions. It is similar to the tactic that creationists use, along the lines of "were you there", to slow down biologists when debating evolution. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... other responders should give everything the benefit of a doubt, or post their argument that it's false. It's completely inappropriate to assume everything without a source to be false, and violates WP:AGF. StuRat 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... let's say, in response to a math question, I state that 3454643646 + 256526256 = 3711169902. Now, if challenged, I won't be able to find a specific source which states that sum is correct, so must remove that statement, under your rules, right ? StuRat 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... instead assuming everything I say is a lie unless I can find a source to disprove your challenge. You should instead assume everything stated on the Ref Desk is true, unless you have evidence to the contrary .... StuRat 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... [factual disputes should be addressed directly on the Ref Desk] ... posting a logical counter argument, either with, or without, sources. "I haven't heard of that, so it must be false" is not a logical counter-argument. StuRat 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do NOT agree that there is no known reference, only that it's not my responsibility to look for it. If you don't believe something I say, then it's your responsibility to disprove it .... StuRat 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... We are a reference desk, a place for facts, not a place to argue about opinions. -- SCZenz 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I urge you to please think twice before providing an uneducated opinion on the RD, especially when there has been well a well sourced answer previously. Rockpocket 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... Are you suggesting that answering without researching is acceptable in an area other than your own expertise? If so, you are mistaken and I am certain others here, probably the vast majority, will not agree you. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... but the RD community will pick on obstinate adherence to a faulty response with its responder's flippant "let the OP decide", that's just wrong. --hydnjo talk 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Demanding that people accept without question every unsourced remark that is written here unless and until someone provides a contradictory source doesn't make sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... nobody is saying that everything you write needs to be deleted. But that does not mean that every random thought that pops into your (or my, or anyone's) head while reading the Reference Desk needs to be posted. There needs to be some restraint, there needs to be an attempt to keep things reasonable .... —Steve Summit (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... Nobody's saying we must all be infallible and nobody expects that of you. But when other editors bring a problem to your attention, please don't just blow them off. This is not a panel discussion with you as a member of the panel- it's a reference desk. Let's use references. Friday (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I have nothing against providing "best guesses" or answers based on personal experience — after all, I've provided several myself — as long as they are clearly described as such. The reference desk are not encyclopedia articles, and we're allowed to engage in some amount of guesswork and original research here, especially if no better answer seems to be available; what we shouldn't do is try to pass our hunches off as facts or expert opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (In response to Friday's assertion that "Unsourced, disputed material can be removed at the discretion of any editor".) ... That won't work with the RD, it's too high-traffic to keep track of deletions (which is important or unilateral action ruins everything). The web-forum type system where everyone makes their own posts and nobody infringes is worth the problems it causes. --⁪frothT C 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with using sources wherever possible, and this includes in challenges to statements made by others.  Don't just say "that's wrong" or "it doesn't seem right", provide some actual evidence.  The same standard for sources should apply both to statements of fact and to challenges to those statements. StuRat 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality control

message: Representative comments that set the scene for the quality debate from Answering with best quesses 
Arguments against sources:
Arguments for a culture where unsourced answers are acceptable, should not be assumed to be false, (and should not be deleted but lets stick to the quality issue for now</strike>)
::.... other responders should give everything the benefit of a doubt, or post their argument that it's false. It's completely inappropriate to assume everything without a source to be false, and violates WP:AGF. StuRat 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .... let's say, in response to a math question, I state that 3454643646 + 256526256 = 3711169902. Now, if challenged, I won't be able to find a specific source which states that sum is correct, so must remove that statement, under your rules, right ? StuRat 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .... instead assuming everything I say is a lie unless I can find a source to disprove your challenge. You should instead assume everything stated on the Ref Desk is true, unless you have evidence to the contrary .... StuRat 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... [factual disputes should be addressed directly on the Ref Desk] ... posting a logical counter argument, either with, or without, sources. "I haven't heard of that, so it must be false" is not a logical counter-argument. StuRat 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do NOT agree that there is no known reference, only that it's not my responsibility to look for it. If you don't believe something I say, then it's your responsibility to disprove it .... StuRat 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... We are a reference desk, a place for facts, not a place to argue about opinions. -- SCZenz 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I urge you to please think twice before providing an uneducated opinion on the RD, especially when there has been well a well sourced answer previously. Rockpocket 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... Are you suggesting that answering without researching is acceptable in an area other than your own expertise? If so, you are mistaken and I am certain others here, probably the vast majority, will not agree you. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... but the RD community will pick on obstinate adherence to a faulty response with its responder's flippant "let the OP decide", that's just wrong. --hydnjo talk 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Demanding that people accept without question every unsourced remark that is written here unless and until someone provides a contradictory source doesn't make sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... nobody is saying that everything you write needs to be deleted. But that does not mean that every random thought that pops into your (or my, or anyone's) head while reading the Reference Desk needs to be posted. There needs to be some restraint, there needs to be an attempt to keep things reasonable .... —Steve Summit (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: .... Nobody's saying we must all be infallible and nobody expects that of you. But when other editors bring a problem to your attention, please don't just blow them off. This is not a panel discussion with you as a member of the panel- it's a reference desk. Let's use references. Friday (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I have nothing against providing "best guesses" or answers based on personal experience — after all, I've provided several myself — as long as they are clearly described as such. The reference desk are not encyclopedia articles, and we're allowed to engage in some amount of guesswork and original research here, especially if no better answer seems to be available; what we shouldn't do is try to pass our hunches off as facts or expert opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (In response to Friday's assertion that "Unsourced, disputed material can be removed at the discretion of any editor".) ... That won't work with the RD, it's too high-traffic to keep track of deletions (which is important or unilateral action ruins everything). The web-forum type system where everyone makes their own posts and nobody infringes is worth the problems it causes. --⁪frothT C 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with using sources wherever possible, and this includes in challenges to statements made by others.  Don't just say "that's wrong" or "it doesn't seem right", provide some actual evidence.  The same standard for sources should apply both to statements of fact and to challenges to those statements. StuRat 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes that frame the debate