Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13

message: (copied from /S)
Shouldnt this page have been archived a number of times before now?--Light current 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy there Kemo Sabe, we were all offered the opportunity to help out manually until a bot could be got. Didn't see lots of hands being raised back then did we?  --hydnjo talk 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've made your point then.  --hydnjo talk 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: only 361 kilobytes, I say we try for 1000. --JWSchmidt 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gee, what a scientific question How do you archieve these RD pages anyway? --`/aksha 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Removing Old Days from Ref Desk (Whether Transcluded or Not) from early September. --hydnjo talk 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been archived. and starting now (probably today) Martin's bot will be doing it for us.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot has done archives up to the 21st, and will do the 22nd on standard archival tonight.  Martinp23 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a pleasure :) Martinp23 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! And cheers to the RefDeskBot. We got a bot!  Thanks to all and especially Martin  :-)  --hydnjo talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll pitch in and give RDB a free user page makeover.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure glad to see it up and running ! StuRat 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
	Let's party!  Screwdrivers  all around. (bar tab to Heidi & Joe)
It's creating archives, yes, but where is it putting them? It's not adding them to the archive page, and it's not indexing, so basically, all of that still has to be done by hand. It's also using a totally different extension to archive to, so all the old archives will red link. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006 vs Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of changing the extensions--172.144.248.157 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The archives changed. They are now at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. The main page is protected so I need an admin to change the links on that page.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I assume the bot is ready to manually change all the old archives all the way back to 2004? Or we just bury those along with the old extension?--172.147.10.221 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you even look at the link I gave you? Nothing will change with the old pages, they stay exactly where they are, and they will be like that forever.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the link I gave you, you'll notice something missing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006, yes Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives is fine, but Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006 and Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006 both still exist, and aren't the same--172.147.10.221 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I don't see how that's really a problem. I am going to connect the links from the old archives to the new ones either tonight or tomorrow morning (8 edits on the monthly pages, and 8 edits on daily archives). If there's a half-before-the-bot and a half-after-the-bot is it really such a big deal? It's happened twice before already (in 2004, and in 2005).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if they are manually corrected, then it isn't a problem. I've made a small change to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions to reflect this --172.128.21.249 05:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who does Tawkerbot tell if it wants to block someone for blanking pages? I'm trying to blank the archive pages that aren't going to be used anymore, but I'm afraid some admin isn't going to realize what I'm doing and block me.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, only anons get warned for blanking pages, it happened when i was trying to archive the other night, you should be fine, I don't think Tawkerbot(s) crawl in the Wikipedia namespace. oh, I see TB2 has already decided to issuse you a warning. --172.128.21.249 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also wish to consolidate the October pages --172.128.21.249 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, tonight or tomorrow. I have some other coding for the archive headers and transclusion as well that I'll be getting on soon.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick note. The main RD page is protected, but the header is not. I can't figure out which link you need to update, so check out :Template:RD header. We should throw a party for Martin. After all the work is done, can we spontaneously make a collage on a page somewhere as a way to say thanks? :-) --HappyCamper 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: This question was posted yesterday and again today.  Both times, the questioner included his/her email address.  The first time, I deleted the email address and showed the questioner how to find the answer to his/her question.  (And frankly, if the questioner can't follow the simple steps that I gave, he/she has no hope of obtaining his/her desired legal qualifications.)  How do we handle this repeated request?  Must someone go in and delete the email address every day?  Can we just delete the question, since it repeats a question asked the previous day?  What do others think?  Marco polo 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Leave the header, delete the question, insert link to previously posted question.  If it should happen a third time, just delete.  --LarryMac 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try to make some templates that make stuff like this easier, especially moving questions between desks (and linking), and referring to duplicate questions. I'll get on it after I finish a template that I need to make for the article space.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about question that is repeated two days in a row? 

message: Just a thought...would it be beneficial if the popular desks such as science, humanities, and miscellaneous were archived in a way such that only 4 days of questions are live, instead of 7? --HappyCamper 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a possibility. Do others think that would be a good idea too? I basically gave up on that because it's obviously not a long-term solution (we can't just keep on reducing the archive time), and there may be a lot of complaints about old questions disappearing.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reducing the archive time is the best incremental solution we have right now which involves minimal change. Historically, Wikipedians are pretty understanding when it comes to archiving faster. In fact, I did that the week before the bot was implemented! --HappyCamper 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the next decrease in archive intervals. 3 days is pretty tight, 2 days is rediculous.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That next decrease will probably not happen, because my guess right now is that by that time, we will likely have a new reference desk. This "archiving faster" is just a band-aid solution to buy ourselves some extra time to prepare for whatever changes ahead. At least, that's how I feel. --HappyCamper 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried the "new reference" desk thing, and it didn't take very well.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come? I read about it (didn't participate), and from what I saw I thought it would be implemented. Anchoress 04:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will propose the design changes again soon, but it is clear that there is a majority of users who would not welcome the addition of new desks. A few "prolific" users want to focus the desks, but most users don't want to see large desks such as Humanities and Science split into pieces.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do think that something needs to be done about the length of some of these pages - should I reduce the time to four days for science, humanities and miscellaneous, and the resond to any complaints which arise?  Martinp23 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that would be a good idea, and we've been thinking about it for a while with little opposition. Go ahead and reduce Science, Humanities, and Misc. if it's not a big deal.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive faster 

message: Is there any way to search the archives?  I know that I question I want to ask has been answered somewhere, but I have absolutely no idea when it was answered, and I don't have the patience to look day by day in the archives.  Is there any way to search them as a whole (or at least in one category), so I don't have to ask this question again?  The Jade Knight 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do something pretty close to this with google.  Add site:en.wikipedia.org "reference desk"  to the search string.  For example, this link searches for "platypus" at the reference desks, including the archives. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after edit conflict):Try entering your question at this WP specific search. If you can get the essence of your subject in only a few words, you'll probably get a hit. --hydnjo talk 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To search the archives up to September 2006, add site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/ to your search. As of October 2006 we changed the directory structure of the archives, so you have to add site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to your search to search those. — QuantumEleven 08:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think I'll update the instructions on the archives front page (which already links to google) to include a reference to the old archives.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search archives? 

message: Actually I dont know to which guidelines or policies those joke templates apply. Can anyone point me to it/them? 8-(--Light current 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are used as warnings related to "silly vandalism", see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism, generally for jokes added in article space.  As everyone has repeatedly pointed out, RD is not article space so not all the same rules apply.  However, just as RD is not article space it's not talk space either.  Given how visible it is, I believe the general consensus (which I will be the first to admit is perhaps not entirely embraced by at least some of the RD regulars) is that rampant silliness is not appropriate.  I think I've said this before, but establishing a "jokes Я us" tone at RD affects the perception of the entire project.  Please bear in mind that not all procedures and policies are written down, so not all possible situations will have a hard and fast rule that obviously applies.  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, template:funnybut and template:seriously (as well as template:behave and template:joke) were designed to deal with "sillly vandalism" as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism (which you quote, above).  If you've looked at any of them, they pretty much all link to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace which has a whole plethora of warning templates covering a wide variety of actions.  However many there are, they don't perfectly cover all situations.  Any user is welcome to use any of these templates if the situation warrants it.  Admins tend to use them more than others, but there are no exclusive usage rights (although misuse of them might be seen as a type of disruption that, perhaps curiously, is not listed as one of the types of vandalism).  The "written" policies, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, are meant to provide a framework within which reasonable people will act reasonably.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke Templates 

message: This para is my effort to distill everything that has been said so far on RD guidelines into the minimum number of simple rules.: KISS principle.
*It is impossible to have personal attacks if the question rather than the questioner is attacked addressed. WP:NPA
*I think that also covers politeness to the questioner and maybe politeness in general. 
*Possibly it also covers WP:AGF if your just looking at the question! Although if you think the question is nonsense then you must AGF and pretend its serious?. 
*It covers WP:BITE and, probably 
*WP:Etiquette. 
Hey is there anything it doesnt cover yet? --Light current 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers in 24 hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No answers in 24hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collecting my thoughts 

message: Quote from WP:civility
Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
If we address the question only, I dont see how we can be in breach of the above 8-)--Light current 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Is this covered under civility or does it have its own guideline?--Light current 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers in 24 hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politeness 

message: Can anyone direct me to any policies or guidelines on jokes or humour on WP please 8-|--Light current 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No answers in 24hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jokes 

message: After all comments have been recieved, I shall attempt to put the proposed new RD guidline into as small a nutshell as possible. Please help me to keep it small.--Light current 02:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the above thoughts here please. 

message: The sort of question we are looking for:
The sort of question not representative of what we want to spend time with:
Take a look at what the RD was like, say, around a year and a half ago: 
I distinctly remember the regulars from a year ago being concerned about the growth of the reference desks - one of the concerns was that it would dilute the quality of questions and answers being exchanged. This in fact, has happened, and in fact for a while now. The culture the reference desks has drifted significantly away from what it used to be. Correspondingly, the regulars from the past are no longer the regulars of the present.
Is this situation something that needs to be addressed? In my opinion, absolutely - and specifically for the reason that the RD has drifted too far away from directly supporting this encyclopedia. It is not serving the primary needs of what this project is all about, and something needs to be done about it, or at least, at minimum, vocalised. The RD is driving away the editors that helped to build what it is today, and in some sense, is now viewed in a less positive light by some of the silent. Now, I have felt rather ambivalent about writing this, because I have an interest in preserving some of what the RD used to be, as well as parts of what it is like today. So, the approach is simply a request for better self regulation - for wont of a better idea - post wisely, post intelligently, and post conscientiously - hopefully if we all take care of our edits to the RD, the RD will take care of itself. Not as tight of an argument I would like to make for lack of time, but hopefully the sentiment on what to do resonates with some. --HappyCamper 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All very fine. But we dont choose the questioners or questions do we?--Light current 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes silently and sadly, just watching.  --hydnjo talk 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleas dont be silent. Add your comment here!--Light current 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes silently and sadly, just watching, hell, back then we didn't even have dated sections. Until this subject came up I didn't stop to think about why the RD was such a pleasant occupation (diversion) back then and why it seems a bit less so now. There were folks back then who could recognize homework questions (no big deal) and could deal with them appropriately with a helpful nudge towards WP or other links. That still is the case for the most part but there seems to be a level of smarminess that has crept in. Harsh admonitions about "that question doesn't belong here" or "we answered that last month" (so feel uninformed) seems to be more the response of a bureaucracy than a voluntary group of helpers. Impatience for infractions of our boilerplate instructions should not piss us off. Shoot, how many of us read the entire instruction manual before going off on our own - not many I'll bet, 'cause that's the kind of folks that we are; intelligent, crafty, witty and self-assured. I just wish that when folks come here sometimes on a lark but sometime genuinely seeking help but are unskillful with their grammar or spelling that we would be more understanding. If appropriately, go to their talk page and explain something that is better done there (without the whole WP watching). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're not "traffic cops", we're more like resourceful councilors. We aught to be encouraging rather that scolding, helpers rather than embarrassers, co-questioners rather than chucklers. If there is genuine helpfulness and generosity in you then please, be an RD helper; as we grow this very visible window into our nature will be seen and criticized more frequently. Please forgive me, I've said much more than I intended at the outset.  --hydnjo talk 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its good to get peoples gut feelings which ever way they go.--Light current 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gut" feelings should be moderated by one's intellegence, common sense, social values, respect for other's feelings, contextual appropriateness and lots of other behavioral reasons. If one acts on "gut" feeling alone then he will be at odds within the community for the obvious reasons.  --hydnjo talk 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RD needs some change 

message: It's not nice to take the piss out of people's spelling mistakes. I'm all for having a joke, but the above comment is just rude. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way, but would you have thought that if you hadn't seen the discussion on the talk page ? StuRat 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who can say? I can't go back and not see it to find out. However don't use that as an excuse to dismiss my comment. Think instead of how Justing Chung might feel. If there is any possibility that hee might take offence at your joke you really shouldn't be making it. Perhaps I am oversensitive, my daughter has dyslexia and has had her spellings riduculed by her peers for years. They are only joking too but it's still hurtful to her. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say.  It's rather obvious, when there are far worse things that have been said at this Ref Desk without you commenting on them.  As for the idea of always assuming everyone has every known disability, so as not to offend them, that seems rather unworkable to me (say somebody asked how to lose weight, and I was going to suggest he walks each day, but what if he's an amputee, then will I have insulted him ?).  StuRat 06:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just come back from quite a long wikibreak, so I don't know what's been said recently. Never the less, that's beside the point really. An answer of the form "but he did it too Miss and you didn't tell him off" belongs in a schoolroom not here. I commented because I personally found your answer rude. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course you making a big deal of this is really what makes a big deal of this. Had yo said nothing then the questioneer could have easily ignored it. It's like with terrorism. Tell people often enough that they have to be afraid and, hey presto, they are afraid (sorry if the comparision seems odd, but it's not all that different). DirkvdM 10:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or he could have quietly thought "I didn't come here to be ridiculed, and simply walked away" Are you arguing that the comment was not rude, or simply arguing that i shouldn't have said anything about it? The first I can accept , opinions differ. But the second (which certainly seems to be what you mean) no way! Had the "joke" been at my expense, I would have found it offensive. That's why I spoke and if that means a big deal is made of it then so be it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  But, of course, terrorism warnings must be given, so we don't have Americans and Europeans walking around Iraq, where their life expectancy would be extremely short. StuRat 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident talk (moved from public page here) 

message: If you'll look through my recent edit history, you'll see that a number of loose ends have been left un-tied after our change over to the new archive system. If someone could go through the last few months worth of archives and try to anticipate any additional redlinks that may exist, and redirect them all to the current archive page--VectorPotentialRD HAS A BOT!!! 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at it over the next few days.  Can you tell me when the bot first went it to operation, so I know where to start ? 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About a week ago, should be easy enough to find the exact date, because that's when Wikipedia:Reference desk archive became Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, so the 24th, although the first of the new archives was for the 17th, since there was a 1 week backlog at the time that the bot went into operation--VectorPotentialRD HAS A BOT !!! 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the monthly links on the day pages before the 16th? I really don't think that's a neccessary burden, the final pages are all properly linked, and so are the monthly pages. The chance of any of those links actually being used (or rather, having to be used) is very small, and the trouble of editing 16 (20? 30?) pages seems like a waste of effort. My laptop also finally burned out 2-days ago (it was well past it's time), so I'll be on sporadic-vacation for a while.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical issues & red links 

message: Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, this edit is itself a joke made in part as a peace offering.  I am in no way claiming that jokes need my approval.  I've intended to phrase it in such a way that anyone not up on the discussion on this talk page will perceive it to simply be a joke, although it is meant as a summary of much of the discussion on this page and as an example of a "safe" joke (explicit self-mockery basically cannot bite).  -- Rick Block (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so is this one (I think). Or this if you prefer to see the real thing. --hydnjo talk 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the best jokes are funny and informative. Like this one. Ignoring typographical inconsistencies, lacking in sexual and excretory references, yet somehow not without merit. Anchoress 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get it :(. Looks like i might have to ditch this joint and go somewhere where not making jokes is tolerated. Rockpocket 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont wish to appear rude, but I honestly cant see anything funny at all in any of the above. And I m really trying to see it. Is this a Europe Americas humor schism?--Light current 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the US, we have Congressional elections coming up, and each candidate is required to say: "I'm Dick Blowhard, and I approve this ad", if they have paid for it. StuRat 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well personally, I think an air of sobriety has already started to return to the RDs --- how boring!--Light current 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  joke I just added