Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think the bot was set to 'three days from most recent' last I checked. --ais523 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Help Desk horizon

message: 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.
# 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.
# Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. = November 13 =, just to be on the safe side.
# 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.
# Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
# Add  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)
thread_title:  RefDeskBot Archives: Caution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I came here to suggest the same and saw it was already discussed. Some people unprecisely mention existing articles they have not edited. Editors waste time searching and may not guess right (recent example). I think the instruction should ask for "the exact article name" (and maybe ask for ArticleName). PrimeHunter 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new step for asking question 

message: 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)
replies: text: And do what with it? (I amssuming you are talking about the archives icon). ViridaeTalk 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: On my browser it looks fine too me. — Seadog 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign 

message: Hi, what happens if you contribute to an article created by someone else, and then someone deletes what you wrote with no justification? I wrote good information that was useful on an article, then someone else deleted it for no reason. This should be changed so that people can't do this. What can someone in my position do when this happens? Tkma 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If you're referring to this edit, yes, the person should have given a reason for deletion in the edit summary. However, it was also unsourced, original research, giving undue weight, and was potentially meant more as a defammatory remark than a reasonable statement. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, this is a talk page to discuss the Help Desk, not the Help Desk itself.  Also, if you feel that an edit was unwarranted or unclear, you can always ask that editor about it, or express your concerns on the article's talk page.  —Keakealani 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions missing 

message: Since these are coming up quite a bit, I wanted to mention how (I think) we should be handling them.
It's best to link to Help:Starting a new page A.K.A. Help:creating a page for these questions. This eliminates redundancy and since there is a dedicated page for page creation instructions, it can be more robust and is likely to be quite current in reflecting any new changes to the way pages are created in the future. The tl;dr arguement exists, but my opinion is that anyone who was given the link to the information and can't be bothered to read enough of it to start a new page shouldn't be writing articles anyways, since they certainly won't familiarise themselves with our core content policies. BigNate37(T) 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's what most people are doing - whenever I see that question, I simply respond with ":See Help:Starting a new page".  It would be cool if someone made a template, but since it's not a long thing to say, it's okay.  It would be good to standardize what we say, but then people might assume we're bots rather than real people, which may reduce the helpfulness of the HD. —Keakealani 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about how to create pages 

message: The help desk page needs archiving desperately. Queries from 17 December are still showing up. Are the bots not working anymore? — Lost(talk) 16:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again this is the case. Isn't there a bot to do this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Could we revert back to a standard table of contents?  That scrolling version is annoying.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if it could at least be not quite as narrow, so that the titles of each section fit on one line. -- Natalya 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, what was wrong with how it used to be? Trebor 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for taking care of that! -- Natalya 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrolling TOC

message: :Question moved to Wikipedia:Help desk#Is a movie article too long?. BigNate37(T) 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a movie article too long? 

message: I think we should be adding Help:Watching pages#What do the colored numbers mean? to our Very Frequently Asked Questions. Not to mention maybe just displaying it in big bold letters on the Help desk itself. We're getting a lot of questions about this. -- Kesh 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done just that.Harryboyles 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do these colored numbers mean? 

message: Is there meant to be a bot updating the dates everyday? Simply south 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates where? Fethroesforia 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main dates for each day. I mean the titles. I have been splitting up the page when it moves from the query on, for example January 5 to January 6, so i have placed the titles there. Simply south 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section dates are supposed to be added each day, here and at the RDs, at about midnght (UTC) by  RefDeskBot. The bot is the creation of and operated by Martinp23 but seems to have become a bit cranky lately (the bot, not Martin). I'll call it to his attention and in the meantime please add the dates manually. BTW, the same bot was also tasked to archive the oldest section at the same time as adding the newly dated section.  --hydnjo talk 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - due to increasing system instability causing all sorts of strange stuff to occur, I had to take all my bots off the Linux box and only run them on the dev PC.  Unfortunately, I'm not awake at 0000Z sometimes, so it doesn't always run.  Fortunately, I've not got a different dsitro installed on the box, and it should be plain sailing in future (or fairly so - my interent may decide to break half way through the archival... (or Wikipedia will)) Martinp23 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes - the bot adds the dates (the most visible sign of its presence) but it also fully archives every desk (and it's just finished getting up to date (yay!)). Martinp23 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, but i've been adding the dates - at least here and Ref Desk Misc up until January 7. Simply south 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you in a time zone ahead of the bot? James086Talk | Contribs 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (The bot is in GMT).  Simply South - thanks for doing that - the bot has been down for a while due to hosting issues (it will, hopefully, work today).  Just a general note to anyone adding date headers when/if the bot doesn't - please use a full date: = January 8 = - this makes it quicker for me to get the bot back online.  Thanks, Martinp23 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I'd like to ask that the responders on the help desk avoid linking to policy and guideline pages by only referring to them by their abbreviations.  I just read a response to a question that referred the questioner to WP:COI.  If you mouseover this link, all that the browser will tell you is that it links to WP:COI.  So if you had no idea what COI stands for, you still aren't any closer to an answer.  You have to click on the link, go to the page, find out that it stands for Conflict of Interest, and finally you can go back to the original page to continue reading the response.  So, to avoid this, you could link to things in the following ways:
*...this presents a conflict of interest...
*...this presents a conflict of interest.  For policy on that see WP:COI
Seeing as how this page is supposed to help newbies as well as experienced users with Wikipedia related questions, I don't see why everyone should be assumed to know what all of our abbreviations stand for.  Dismas|(talk) 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To pick up on your example, I don't think most people would understand what was meant by "conflict of interest" in the sense it's used at WP:COI unless they clicked on the link anyway, so I don't see this as a big problem. I try to do as you ask in my Help Desk responses myself because it makes them read better, but I also think exposure to some of these abbreviations (many of which will be encountered in other contexts here on Wikipedia, after all) is not necessarily a bad thing. Just my $0.02. --Tkynerd 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if not understanding the abbreviations will make people more likely to click on the links and actually read a bit of the policies, which would be a big plus.  delldot | talk 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. I'd almost say: cryptic abbreviations for the newbies (to lead them to the more detailed information they need), linked jargon for old hands. --Tkynerd 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly always nice to pipe the link to give the title of the guideline page. -- Natalya 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'f I'm linked to anything, I open it in a different tab to read when I finish reading.  I really don't think it's a problem, and the thought that it heightens curiosity is valid, in my opinion.  I agree that piped links are good in most cases, but I don't think it's all that much of a hassle. *shrug* —Keakealani·?·!·@ 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would normally have no problem with opening links in another tab or window... at home.  I do quite a bit of editing at work and although I work for one of the largest technology companies in the world, the computers that we're allowed to use quite simply suck.  And we're forced to use an old version of IE which doesn't have tabs.  This put to my mind the home user who may not have the greatest connection/computer/broswer/computer apptitude and it would help them, and me, if the abbreviations were explained.  I do agree with User:ais523 in that if a person basically describes the page that they're looking for, giving them the abbreviation is probably the best course of action in that case.  Dismas|(talk) 10:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, your situation is similar to mine. I'm using IE6 on a computer to which I don't have admin access (so I have no chance of installing another browser), and I don't have tabbed browsing. My browsing is mostly of the 'right click - open in new page' variety, and so I've had 6 windows open at once before (although that's nothing to my bot, which had 21 windows open at once trying to meet its edit rate on one occasion, so I had to slow down the edit rate). --ais523 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sympathetic to all the above arguments, both pro and con. One argument in favor of presenting the abbreviation is that it drives home to the user that this particular issue is so old hat that it has an abbreviation. I think that's a good message to send, although one sends it just as well by spelling out the link and giving the abbreviated link in parenthesis. It's good for the users to grasp that almost every problem they could experience on Wikipedia has been experienced and dealt with many times before by others, a detailed written record exists, and searching for it is practical and a good idea. I like to mention how I looked up an answer (for example, by searching on User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia, or searching the Help desk archive), possibly giving readers the proverbial fishing pole instead of just the fish. In the final analysis, however, questioners should be grateful they are getting free support, of whatever quality. Lots of companies charge good money for what we're doling out for free. If the user has to work a bit to decode an answer, that's perfectly acceptable if it saves the answerer a bit of time. The whole point here is to build an encyclopedia, and if people are going to do that, they had better learn how to look up the answers to their questions. Handing the entire answer to the questioner and leaving no work for him or her at all kind of stunts their relevant skill development, in my opinion. We need new users to learn how to navigate complex source material and generate answers, or they won't be much use to the encyclopedia project, where editors typically need to look up and juggle multiple references as they work on a page. --Teratornis 06:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorthand and its deterioration of communication 

message: Looks like the section headers for the Help desk page are messed up. It currently only runs up to January 10, though articles in that section are dated for the 11th. -- Kesh 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, date headers are added manually, so they may not be added every day.  I will go and correct that, but it's largely inevitable because it doesn't matter enough for people to religiously change them at midnight XD —Keakealani·?·!·@ 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Error 

message: Maybe I should ask on the help desk, but is there a reason this is in the Wikipedia space instead of Help space? James086Talk | Contribs 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Help: namespace, as far as I know, is for articles telling people how to do things; also, they are usually copies of articles on MediaWiki.  I don't know for sure, but I'd assumed that's why.  Also, it makes more sense of WP:HD to be in the same namespace as WP:RD. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks, it just seemed a bit strange to me that it was WP: and I couldn't find anything in the archives. James086Talk | Contribs 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikispace

message: Hello, I am a new user. I was just wondering how you put pictures on articles? Thank you and I await your response so please respond soon. Radical3 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question was copied to the Help desk - please look for the response there. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Would like a heads up on if it's possible to override a classed template (e.g., "infobox city") with a style attribute and not rewrite the entire table? If it's possible to add to a stylesheet, and because I'm still learning Wiki code, can you please explain how? Just want to change the table size, border and background color, but leave the rest of the formatting alone.FResearcher 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: template:infobox city uses CSS styles "infobox" and "infobox.geography", both defined in MediaWiki:Common.css.  You can override these with your own CSS file (in a subpage of your user page), see Help:User style.  This particular template sets its width in the template itself (not through a width in an external style definition), so I don't think you'll be able to change the width.  Border and background color should be straightforward.   For future reference, this sort of question should be on Wikipedia:Help desk, not on this page (this page is not the help desk, but a page for talking about the help desk).  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS|XHTML: Size, Border, and Background Color of Classed Templates 

message: I was thinking about changing the blue to a shade of green. I tested it out using the "Show Preview" button and it looked good. But before anyone changes it, I want to hear the opinion of other Wikipedians to help reach a consensus on what to do. Kamope · talk · contributions 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the look at the moment, with the box being much the same colour as the background. On the other hand, your change might look even better; what shade of green did you use? --ais523 10:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pale green. Kamope · talk · contributions 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I prefer the current version; the green's a bit garish for my taste, and I like the colour-coordination behind the current version. --ais523 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current blue shade is used for all help related pages, it is seen at Help:Contents and WP:FAQ etc.--Commander Keane 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: Same problem as before on the reference desk, but this time for the help desk. Just letting everyone know. --WikiSlasher 08:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the stuff older than a week should be archived. Where the bots at? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RefDeskBot's owner seems to have lost Internet access, and so the bot has stopped operating. The archiving will have to be done by hand until the bot comes back on line. --ais523 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now archived everything before January 29 by hand. (I don't do as good a job at it as the bot does, though). --ais523 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot's back online now, on the toolserver (so no more major downtime :)).  I'll take User:MartinBotII through the archives at some point to fix any broken headers and resovle navigation problems. Thanks, Martinp23 10:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All archives have now been corrected through to October 12th when RefDeskBot first started on the Help Desk--VectorPotentialTalk 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive navigation again 

message: I'd like to post a note on the top of the help desk page that all reports of vandalism will be investigated and removed. If everyone who responds to messages acts uniformly, including notifying the reporter of the policy, we'll be able to show newbies how to revert and vandals they won't get an outlet here. What do you all think? Xiner (talk, email) 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell such posters about WP:REVERT. We can't be a dumping ground for everything vandals put on Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we don't discourage the vandalism from being reported.  I'd rather it be reported here than not mentioned at all, because a new user doesn't feel comfortble/know what to do.  -- Natalya 01:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sure, they can still post it, it's just that I think we should we respond on the user talk page, check up on the affected page, then remove the post. Xiner (talk, email) 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism repeated on the help desk 

message: On February 5th, User:Zanimum changed Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise) so that the first listed action under "Solutions" is to "ask the help desk", rather than "change the content yourself".  Specific instructions are to post a new section at the help desk:
clearly explain what information is incorrect, and what the correct information should be. We ask that you provide sources where we can verify this information, preferably on an official website or independent resource, such as a newspaper or trade journal article.
User:Zanimum is an administrator and a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Committee.
So - it seems worth suggesting to those who answer questions here that it might not be a good idea, when presented with a question about a factual error, by someone from an enterprise (organization), to tell them "please fix it yourself".  Instead, in the spirit of what the Foundation seems to want, I recommend that editors answering the question, at minimum, post the disputed information on the article talk page, to assist things, and at maximum actually research the problem and deal with it, including editing the article as needed.
Also, related: per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Help Desk personnel needed, it seems that editors are being recruited to help out here.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 16:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikimedia policy - referring organizations complaining about factual problems to the Help Desk  

message: I'm not responding directly to these points; I want to add a strong caveat:  The New Contributor's Help Page should stay where it is; the issue is whether it should be a place to ask questions.  I suggest that it not be, for reasons mentioned above, but rather that new users be referred to Wikipedia:Questions.  (I don't particularly like the layout of that page, but that's another issue.)  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  We already have ample help pages for the newcomer.  There's a Welcome page, an About page, an Introduction, a Tutorial, and a Getting started page.  Another static help page for new users would simply be redundant. The Transhumanist   16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Static pages may be hard for many first-time visitors to comprehend. A user has to know a certain amount about computers and Wikipedia to find and navigate through the static training pages; passively watching a demonstration while listening to a narrator flattens that initial barrier. Wikipedia:Instructional material#MediaWiki training videos lists some interesting examples of what can be done with videos at low cost. New users might benefit from access to a large video library covering more of the Wikipedia knowledge. --Teratornis 04:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Methinks yes.  I've answered more complicated questions on the Help Desk, true, but I've also answered the easiest of questions.  I never knew that the other page existed, in fact.  Either way, I think "Help desk" sounds more user-friendly than "New contributors' help desk".  x42bn6 Talk 01:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the above editor, I just discovered it by accident, and that is something that needs to be fixed if we are to keep it. I was initially in favour of a merge because it is hardly over-utilised, but the argument about user-friendliness may be valid. It would be easy to make it more accessible to helpers and newbies alike, and if that is done, maybe a merge is unnecessary. That said, is the main HD off-putting to newcomers and do we need two similar HDs when even the main HD is never too busy for contributors to handle? A quick straw poll of the very people at whom it is aimed might be useful, but I am two-thirds in favour of the merge. Adrian M. H. 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repurpose the new contributor's help page? 

message: I don't know anything about bot design, but in a perfect world:
#A bot would archive all requests some period (7 days?) after they received their first response.
#*(Even better, maybe we could have some template system to mark questions as answered in hidden text, so that the bot could tell answered from unanswered questions).
#After archiving, the bot would put a message on the talk page of the original posting user notifying them that their question had been archived and including a link to the question and response in the archive.  (For extra credit, the bot might confirm that the question heading was unique in the archive).
#The bot would archive unanswered questions after some period (21 days?) after posting, and post a link to the archive question and an apology to the poster.
Thoughts?  Thanks, TheronJ 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to the first point, I would welcome much more frequent archiving (2ish days?) as the page grows to ridiculous sizes, yet the vast majority of sections are answered satisfactorily by one person. Actually, given the inability to watchlist a particular section, subsequent questions posted in pre-existing sections are unlikely to be seen at all. Trebor 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant to be archived by RefDeskBot, but that bot is down at the moment so we're having to do it by hand. --ais523 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving suggestion 

message: Mention was made in the prior section about the page getting too long on occasion.  Does anyone have an objection to automating the archiving of the page - any section over 48 hours old gets archived by a bot?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, saves time and effort. --K.Z      Talk  •   Vandal  •  Contrib  01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the page use to be archive questions older than a week? I'd try at least four days now. Two days seems a bit too quick. Btw, the page needs archival now. Xiner (talk, email) 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I'll check on Werdnabot (sp?) for archiving, unless someone else gets there first.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm added code from User talk:Yonatanh and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement for automated processing of my own user talk page by User:Werdnabot as a test - I'm trying to replicate the archiving by individual date that now occurs (done manually).  I'm guessing that the name of the archive (e.g., 2007-Feb-21) will the actual date that a bunch of sections were archived, rather than when they were created (that is, the date that the questions were asked), but I don't think that's a big issue (anyway, I hope it's not).  Also, the heading for each day will have to be deleted by hand once the day's postings have been entirely archived; again, no big deal, I hope.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Two days is much too quick in my opinion.  Supporting Xiner's opinion.. SubSeven 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, wait. You may wish to talk to  about , whose very purpose is being replaced! It shouldn't be that hard for Martinp23 to change the source code for archival time. GracenotesT § 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice bot. I've left him a note but I'm kinda confused about what's what, so I'd appreciate if you could check it for factual errors. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - if you can wait a few days, I'll get RefDeskBot to archive the desk as it has done in the past (it's been down for about a month due to problems with my internet connection).  I'd urge against going to getting WerdnaBot or similar, as that sort aren't as suitable for desk archival.  A solution like RDB is specifically tailored to the RD and HD, and makes things like monthly archive pages giving the titles of each question.  Over the last 6 months or so, RDB has been working on the HD and RDs, and my problems with my phone line caused the bot to be inactive for a month or so.  Back when the bot was running, I think it was on a 3 or 4 day throttle, which should still be fine now.  Thanks - Martinp23 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, one note. Do we need the HD Q&As archived? I don't think anyone checks them. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated archiving 

message: The edit buttons are gone from the help desk. What's up with that? I don't get them in Firefox or IE. Xiner (talk, email) 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear on my browser. My guess is that there must have been a __NOEDITSECTION__ somewhere on the page in a previous revision, which would indeed remove the section editing links (I use that magic word on my userpage). Try clearing your cache perhaps? Kyra~(talk) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that, I thought I was looking at the help desk for a second, hunting for the magic word now... my mistake. Kyra~(talk) 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I have narrowed it down. The magic word is not on the page, and testing the raw code in a wiki on my machine doesn't duplicate the behavior (using version 1.7). I suppose trying selective reverts might work, though. It's an idea at least. I am going to try upgrading to the current version and importing the templates used; no idea if it will work, however. Kyra~(talk) 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about this as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I may as well add that it can be easily fixed by editing the entire page, and scrolling below the edit box and seeing what pages are transcluded on WP:HD. Although it's great that it has been fixed! GracenotesT § 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section editing not possible

message: In the short time I've volunteered here, I've noticed there are many questions asked in which don't relate to Wikipedia in which should be asked at the reference desk, maybe we should add a mesage box like the one on Wikipedia:Changing Username with the big stop hand on it explaining that this is only for wikipedia related questions, any thoughts and/or comments.Tellyaddict 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't help in the slightest. Clearly many people post without reading the instructions, indeed with almost no idea of where they are or what they are doing. They also never see the replies, so we might just as well ignore or delete them. Notinasnaid 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose you could be right, still people can voice their thoughts here! Thanks for your quick comments Tellyaddict 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is already a rather large template at the top of the page --VectorPotentialTalk 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it's not working that well.  I'm going to change it; let's see if that makes any difference.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message box 

message: hi i dont know what to do, can anyone help—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akemi2.0 (talk • contribs)  
:That depends. What sort of thing do you want to do? (To reply to this message click the Edit link next to "hi", and type your response at the end, then click Save Page. Notinasnaid 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: How can part of an article, say one paragraph, be saved as a file?
69.255.232.144 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way I can think of is to copy and paste. If it is not formatted when you do that, try the printable version. Prodego talk 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CITE PART OF AN ARTICLE 

message: Trying to keep on the same time zone as when the other dates are done, i have tried to edit the page with no luck. The dating system is messed up with multiple comments done on the 21st listed under the 20th and only 2 comments under the actual date. The page will not let editing occur before those 2 comments on the 21st. Simply south 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up 

message: Ahem. Err, hi there.  What does the little red ka-thwang thingy -->  ! <--  mean on the recent changes page?  Bmackenty 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that nobody has checked the change to make sure that it isn't vandalism yet. (By the way, these 'patrol marks' aren't used on the English Wikipedia, but they are on some of the smaller ones.) --ais523 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mega newbie question 

message: I've often looked with some disappointment at the instructions at the top of the help page, so widely ignored, which now run to two-and-half screens in my browser. So I was pleased today to unearth while on a routine dig the following note: Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. Comments? Notinasnaid 09:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a duplicate statement and just made a small change to Wikipedia:Help desk/Header to correct it. Otherwise, it does make sense to condense the header somewhat - I suggest getting rid of most of it since it is ignored - the most critical stuff will remain and potentially be viewed more often that way. Nihiltres 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions 

message: I know this has been discussed before, but maybe this page is getting more attention than before. It takes much longer that any other page on WP to load on my broadband cable connection. On dialup, forget it. Sections should really be archived a day or 2 sooner. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is back up to date now, so hopefully the problems will be reduced. Martinp23 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we want to do this again, but the Help Desk does appear to be quite lengthy at the moment... —Keakealani·?·!·@ 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the bot missed one day, the missing archive has been restored --VectorPotentialTalk 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: While I was fixing a typo in the header, it occured to me that maybe it should read "...using and editing Wikipedia", but I didn't want to change it arbitrarily. Does anyone else agree/disagree? Adrian M. H. 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go even further and suggest just 'using'. --ais523 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:WikipediaOther which is on the main page only says "using". I think the template and header should match. "using" sounds OK to me. PrimeHunter 02:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Help Desk Header 

message: I can't remember my password!
I am User:WikiAlexC
*If you entered your email address during registration you can ask for a new one. Otherwise you're out of luck. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Me! 

message: I added this as a shortcut as people often ask the question "why", so it seems appropriate to redirect here. Simply south 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Y 

message: question moved to main Help desk page Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I Search Wikipedia Pictures? 

message: Somebody wrote "Also, please, how will i find your answer? You say not to use email but I'm going to include it here anyway as my work email is well guarded from spam. please respond to that" (diff). Should we keep the address when it's specifically requested? We don't know whether it's really the persons address unless we mail it and get an answer. PrimeHunter 11:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that it should really be removed. They should be returning to or watching the Help Desk, not waiting on us to e-mail them. The heading clearly asks people not to include an e-mail address. That said, they ultimately have responsibility to take note of the advice. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case, since they obviously actually read the rules, then perhaps their question ("how will i find your answer?") should be answered right next to the "no email" rule, eg. "Any responses to your question will appear on this page, in the same section as the question." Confusing Manifestation 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Leaving someone's email address in does not harm the encyclopedia, and since Wikipedia isn't a babysitting service, I think if someone knows that we recommend no email but wants to include it anyway, we should leave it. Anchoress 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect request to keep mail address? 

message: First, I wonder why we get so many requests for satellite imagery, any thoughts? Second, is there a template to use that tells other edit a comment from this page was moved to WP:HD. Scottydude  talk 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are quite a lot of satellite images on Commons (because much of NASA's work is public-domain), some of which are used here; as for the movement from talkpage to project page, I don't think there's a specific template for that (but it's easy to write a notice by hand). --ais523 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was just curious about the template. Thanks, Scottydude  talk 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: What do all you Wikis think about creating 2 separate pages for questions?  I think there is a reasonable need for the following:
1. Beginner's Questions
2. Advanced User's Questions
I understand not everyone with a question will post their's properly, but I think it would be beneficial to have both. Newbies or anons often just want a simple, basic question answered. I feel several may be scared or think they're in the wrong place if they read a ton of technical stuff. If we want to be inclusive, lets start by helping them feel welcome and able.
Let me know what you think!  SkipperClipper 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is already Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, so maybe your idea is implemented.--Commander Keane 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Help Desk Question Pages? 

message: Several days ago I added the "Read this first!" to the top of the header on the desk.  It started a series of edits by other users (which seems to happen with these type of edits). Anyways, I went to look at the header on the subpage and it isn't visible! I feel like I am missing something and being stupid but I don't know.  Could someone please tell me. Thanks, Scottydude  talk 12:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been fixed. ~~ AVTN T CVPS 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you. It was a mistake with the <includeonly> tag. Scottydude  talk 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Desk/Header 

message: Should anything be done about   this interruption on Talk:Head Over Heels (video game). I don't want to see unnecessary interruptions become the norm. I understand that interruptions are allowed if the original post is long, but the interrupted post was short and the interrupter didn't follow the interruption guidelines. --EarthFurst 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say be bold: if you really think that it's disruptive, carefully move it to a nicer spot and note that you moved it. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  when talk interruption guildelines aren't followed?