Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 26

message: The changes to the format and style of presentation of the RD have drawn my attention to the general desiderata, for the first time, I have to confess!  In the section on how to answer a question I note the admonition not to soapbox on sensitive matters, like religion and politics; but it happens all the time, to a quite tiresome degree.  Is there any effective control on this point, or is it just some wishful thinking? Clio the Muse 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good starting point would be to politely identify specific problems on the user's talk page, or here.  Hopefully this will cause problems to be reduced; this is far better than any sort of control, effective or not. -- SCZenz 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, SCZenz, you are quite right, though I think this kind of approach assumes a degree of intellectual maturity which, sadly, is not always present.  Clio the Muse 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I always interpreted that to be a kind of tongue-in-cheek reminder that "If the OP asks about religion or politics then it's going to explode - and that's ok since it's what they asked for - but don't go off on tangential diatribes under unrelated questions" --⁪frothT 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Soapboxing" is a matter of interpretation. I believe it's quite possible that certain users who tend to go on and on in presenting their own POV, sincerely believe that all they're doing is presenting NPOV data, and are genuinely blinded to the fact that in doing so, they themselves are equally guilty of soapboxing. Loomis 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So who would you recommend as the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong? SteveBaker 17:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about when answers are obviously wrong - you know like 'paris is not in mainland europe' that sort of thing.87.102.20.105 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not. You see? --⁪frothT 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A better thing to do is to just leave your own reply below it saying "parent is wrong, this is why" etc. Think about it- if both think they're right, isn't there a chance that you're the one in error? The only thing you can do is offer your own comments. Do not change others. --⁪frothT 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add, though understandably this may be lost on many of you, that a veiled personal attack is no less a personal attack than an open personal attack. Of course that may be just my intellectual immaturity speaking. Still, I'd hope all would refrain from personal attacks.WP:NPA Loomis 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "parent is wrong" isn't an attack on the parent poster it's an attack on the parent post, which is perfectly fine (not a "veiled personal attack") --⁪frothT 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood my post, froth. I wasn't responding to your post, I actually agree with it. I was responding to a veiled personal attack upon another user's lack of "intellectual maturity" posted above. I suppose the attack was nicely veiled indeed, as it would appear that only the attacker and the target picked up on it. I suppose I could play the same game, and lament the fact that any comments on another user's talkpage concerning WP:NPA would be in vain, as it "assumes a degree of humble self-reflection which, sadly, is not always present". What a clever way to successfuly deliver a personal attack without anyone else being any bit the wiser! Of course I've decided to take the high road, and save for the above illustration, to do my best to refrain from even the most carefully veiled of personal attacks. Loomis 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Loomis, might I suggest - as the quite recent target of one of your latest - "your best" might not be good enough. Or do you not think it's "personal" if what you disparage is the content of another editor's remarks. Unctuous effusions as to the individual's personal worth don't amount to much when you diss their writing. Do you really think that your readers (certainly other WP editors) aren't on to you?  (That's a rhetorical question, by the way -- consider it, if you will, food for thought). -- Deborahjay 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right it's not personal if you disparage the content of another editor's remarks. Exposing bad content is one of the only reasons that wikipedia has its little shred of credibility. And on project pages like the RD you can't very well remove others' comments, you can only disprove them --⁪frothT 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite poetic! But the reason I didn't catch the personal attack isn't that I lack the intellectual capacity, it's because I didn't actually read any of it. --⁪frothT 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: {personal attack removed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be in the category of "open personal attack", Froth.  You're not required to like everybody, or even respect them, just not to attack them. JackofOz 03:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, found it! This is what I was specifically referring to jack.. Loomis probably remembered what I was talking about --⁪frothT 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew exactly what you were referring to.  It makes no difference.  No matter what may have transpired previously or who was involved in it, don't get suckered into taking clio seriously is a personal attack.  Take issue with her contributions if you like, but not her personally.  You may choose to not take her (or anyone) seriously, that is your right, but advocating in this forum that others make a similar choice is not your right.  JackofOz 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK come on, the specific reason for that whole tirade was because loomis came to the realization that he had been taking what she said at face value, but for whatever reason her statements were utterly false and off-the-wall. What I said was almost a direct quote out of that issue. Not exactly a personal attack I don't think- especially as it's not my words so much as his. But I do agree that my comment was rather obscure.. a more direct reminder would have sufficed (or no reply at all, but why spoil the fun? :p) --⁪frothT 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for fun; there's not enough fun in the world.  But this is serious, Froth.  You yourself have perfectly illustrated the distinction between attacking someone's contributions and attacking them personally.  her statements were utterly false and off-the-wall is fine because it's an opinion of what she said.  But don't get suckered into taking clio seriously is an ad hominem attack because it suggests that nothing she can ever say would be of any value, which is a fairly damning statement about Clio personally.   JackofOz 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even comments such as her statements were utterly false and off-the-wall seems like an attack if not present as part of an argument relating to specific statements.  So often we see Clio's contributions stereotyped and yet each time I look at her comments they seem quite reasonable.  I think a time comes when it is hard to see past ones own expectations. David D. (Talk) 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was "loomis realized her statements were..." It was a paraphrase from the conflict earlier, not my own personal take on it or whatever --⁪frothT 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dont't waste your energy with this rubbish, Jack.  I've known all along how perverse this little gang is in the use of character assasination as a mode of discourse.  I have long preceived them in terms of absolute contempt; and if that is conceived of as a personal attack, I make no apology.  And the comment at the ouset of this thread was directed at no particular individual.  I know that some people find it impossible to get me out of mind; but I assure you, and the rest of the community, that the passion is not in any degree returned. Clio the Muse 06:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks froth, I see you have a good handle on what's going on, but I had no intention of turning this into yet another flame-war. I was merely making an observation. Since it's ok to attack a post, but not a poster, all I was pointing out was the painfully obvious disingenuity of certain of the above posts. They were clearly cleverly veiled personal attacks, and it's clear that most others understand that much. Of course to name names might very well be construed as a personal attack in and of itself, so I won't. Thanks again for your understanding froth, but I too suggest you not waste your energy on this nonsense. Loomis 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'm trying to stay semi-neutral too but I think there's a lot of over reacting going on --⁪frothT 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol clio you're impossible. :D Like your style though..--⁪frothT 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see; you think it's alright to suggest that I should not be taken seriously and that people should not be 'suckered' by me, and that my statements are 'false and off-the-wall ?  Would you like to challenge me on any specific statement I have made?  I suspect not.  Why do you give me the obviously mistaken impression-and it clearly is a mistaken impression- that you could be taken for little more than a nerd and a wanker (do Americans understand this expression?) when you make such a useful contribution to answering questions on the Reference Desk? Clio the Muse 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because I am on both counts. As for the other stuff, I guess it's impossible to even argue without exposing your weird logic.. which would be very easily seen as a personal attack by people who sadly don't see it. I think this is what Loomis was saying above (albiet a bit more subtly) "any comments on another user's talkpage concerning WP:NPA would be in vain, as it 'assumes a degree of humble self-reflection which, sadly, is not always present'. What a clever way to successfuly deliver a personal attack without anyone else being any bit the wiser!" This makes you invincible.. like I said, I like your style --⁪frothT 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really are a nerd and a wanker? Golly gosh.  I thought my impression had been mistaken.  Many thanks for your frank admission; and long may you continue to exercise your well-honed talents.  My very best wishes.  Clio the Muse 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at my user page.. my favorite books alone are enough to put me into the hardcore geek category, if you couldn't already tell from the first paragraph. And "wanker" by virtue of my name and picture, which are decidedly male. Or did you mean that in a more derogatory way? (I'm American as you surmised and my userpage states) By the way, cutting away the flapping of mocking lips, we get Why do you give me the ... impression ... that you could be taken for little more than a nerd and a wanker which is ohhhh so clearly a personal attack. But I really don't care. --⁪frothT 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good for you!  I certainly have no problem with your reading; I'm an avid reader myself.  You are a wanker, by your own admission; so this can hardly be taken as a personal attack.  But please do be careful of possible repetitive strain injury. After all, your health is important.  Clio the Muse 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *raised eyebrow* That was weak. (by your own admission; so this can hardly be taken as a personal attack) --⁪frothT 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, loomis I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth. I think that's what you meant. But I've misunderstood before- that very quote is from a clarification of a misunderstanding IIRC! --⁪froth
T 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, froth, you seem to have understood me perfectly well. I'm surprised at you though. Being referred to as a wanker is not a personal attack at all! On the contrary, it's something you should wear with pride. Wankers of the World, Unite! :--) Loomis 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well apparently Clio thought it was an insult. Unite! --⁪frothT 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mm yes, good idea. --⁪froth
T 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awwww! But it was oh so entertaining! Oh well, I suppose all good things must come to an end. :--) Loomis 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are precisely my sentiments, Jack. Loomis 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because I'm not sorry and I don't see why I should never let it happen again :p --⁪frothT 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and hipocrite, is it that you're trying your very best to live up to your pseudonym by so selectively removing certain personal attacks, while leaving others untouched? Is not the statement "Why do you give me the ... impression ... that you could be taken for little more than a nerd and a wanker" not the clearest of personal attacks imaginable? Please, either remove all personal attacks, or none. Anything less would, well, be rather "hipocritical" [sic]. (And please forgive me if in some twisted way you construe this very post to be some sort of personal attack, if so, I suppose those who attacked me as being a "witch-hunting", "character-assassin" were right after all.) :--). Loomis 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goodness. Is there so little needed done on the encyclopaedia that we have all resorted to this? Please, just move on. Rockpocket 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, froth, let me try and make it clear.  "Joe said xxxxxx.  I disagree with that because it's full of errors etc etc" is an attack on what Joe said.  That is perfectly ok.  "Joe said xxxxx.  He's obviously a wanker if he thinks that" is an attack on Joe personally, and is not ok.  People and their actions are different things.  Attack people's actions, not the people themselves.  It's pretty simple, really.  JackofOz 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admire your tenacity, Jack, though I think it may be wasted effort.  Have you seen what Deborahjay has written above?  It's good to know that more people are becoming aware of the intellectually impoverished forms of argument used here by the less capable.  Clio the Muse 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is spinning into abject absurdity. Jack, I'm not the one who said that, Clio is. Clio, how are you so darn good at getting away with personal attacks? I fully admit, the masterful coordination of your unbelievably rude statements leaves me quite unable to defend my intellectual capability. --⁪frothT 06:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it froth. Many of the above here are merely intellectually impoverished wankers. (Now just watch this post be removed as a personal attack while the original posts introducing such remarks are left completely untouched...more proof of the absurdity you're speaking of). Loomis 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm speechless. --69.175.17.5 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for referring to me as a "wanker", Clio. To me, that's one of the clearest of personal attacks I can imagine. I suppose I'll just add that to the already long list of epithets you've thrown my way. Yet for reasons I've yet to comprehend, few others seem to be catching on to your endless personal attacks. For my sake though, consider the "wanker" epithet one of the reasons why I'm one of the few who can admit to being once suckered into taking you seriously. And hipocrite don't you dare remove this unless you remove all of Clio's personal attacks as well. Yours, Loomis the wanker. Loomis 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a soapbox 

message: Hi,
I'm 54, a retired English/Music teacher and I have never thoroughly uderstood the "lie, lay, lie" and "lay" etc.  Would you please define and use in a sentence?
Thanks
68.99.48.158 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your question to the actual language desk where people are more likely to see it. --⁪frothT 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English grammar 

message: The automated archiving on the Humanities Desk has become a complete mess, some things going and others not.  Is there any way of sorting this out?  I have not the first clue how to attempt this myself! Clio the Muse 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, now I will proceed with Science and Misc desks. --Parker007 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Parker.  You're a genius! Clio the Muse 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never had the "genius" comment in a long time. Thnx, you made my day. --Parker007 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genius! Genius! Genius! Now do Computing :D --⁪frothT 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I don't know why I'm bringing this up, as I can't think up any possible solution to it, but I'd like to voice my frustration concerning the all-too-many ungrateful OPs who post a less than fully comprehensible question, and after struggling to understand it, don't even bother following up with the additional details required for a complete answer.
Similarly, many other OP's post a fully comprehensible question, yet maybe it's just me, but when I answer it to the best of my abilities I politely request the OP to come back to confirm whether or not my response was helpful, just so as to gauge the effectiveness of my responses. Similarly, once their question has been solved, they see no point in coming back to give us the feedback, be it positive or negative, that any expert in any field requires to once again gauge the accuracy of his/her level of expertise on any given subject.     
For example, just recently I chose to respond to a question regarding the subject of "demand elasticity" within the field of economics, a field that I've devoted a good deal of my studies toward. The question was barely comprehensible, yet I did my best to answer it, and requested some further clarification in order to provide a more complete response. Of course I was fooling only myself, as the OP never even bothered to come back. Not only were my efforts apparently in vain, but even as a contributor, I consider these types of questions to be learning experiences. It's not a mere matter of personal satisfaction, but more importantly a matter of what I call "continuous learning". By that I mean that I depend on OPs to provide some sort of feedback regarding my responses, in order for me to further hone my skills in a given field. It's incredibly frustrating to provide a response, then request feedback on the quality of the response, only to be completely forgotten.
Once again, I doubt any of you can help...but who knows. Even a few words of consolation would be comforting! Loomis 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be polite for questioners to follow up with a brief 'thank-you' if the answer(s) proved useful - but I don't think it's anything we should expect to actually happen!  My biggest concern is whether some of these people even read the answers. SteveBaker 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes it all the nicer when someone actually does take a moment to thank us! -- (silver-lining specialist) Justanother 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not a real reference desk- this is the intarwebs and rudeness is expected (and perfectly fine). But for some words of consolation.. the OP might not have read your response but someone else might have. Through dumps and backups, your post is likely to survive for a long time somewhere.. possibly hundreds of years. Who knows, maybe some kid in the future will read it while doing research for a report and be impressed! --⁪frothT 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To expect gratitude for service rendered destroys the act as "service" and instead makes it a paid job. -_- V-Man737 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I take it then, that you never thank anyone for anything? According to your above statement, a mere "Thank You" for a kind gesture would transform any act of pure benevolence into a down-and-dirty quid pro quo. To put it another way, whenever I hold the door for a perfect stranger out of nothing but kindness, if the stranger then shows some gratitude for my kindness and thanks me, should I be insulted by the fact that my act of kindness has been reduced to some sort of "paid job"? Gratitude is a matter of respect and acknowledgment of another's kindness, not a mere "payment" of sorts for a job well done. Loomis 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But when you expect thanks it ruins the spirit of the voluneering... --⁪frothT 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  It's nice to receive an acknowledgment, but in this business you'd go mad if the lack of thanks bothered you.  There could be many innocuous reasons why an OP doesn't thank an answerer.  Maybe they haven't got around to reading the response yet, maybe they've fallen under a bus, whatever.  We shouldn't place ourselves in the position of judging someone as rude for saying nothing, because we don't know what's going on in their busy lives.  However, that's not the same thing as active rudeness.   I certainly do not agree that rudeness is "perfectly fine".  Rudeness is never fine.  JackofOz 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever read usenet? Ever play any online games? Ever participate in actual internet forums (ie not the extremely civil wikipedia)? Flaming (Internet) --⁪frothT 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're irrelevant to my point.  Just because the world has become incredibly rude doesn't make it ok.  If we all just lie down and take this sort of crap, we deserve whatever they can dish out.  And joining them because you can't beat them is not the way ahead.  People have to take a stand, goddammit.  That Wikipedia is "extremely civil" is a wonderful mark in its favour.  JackofOz 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; the ability to be rude or nice or however you want to be with total anonymity and no fear of social consequences is one of the greatest things the internet has brought us --⁪frothT 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No fear of social consequences, eh?  What about the social consequence of millions of people sitting at computers, being deliberately rude to each other, and thinking that they actually have lives or will actually make significant differences to the world?  That's called mass delusion, and if enough unfortunates engage in such bizarre behaviour, the world will soon have such a massive problem on its hands that it'll make climate change seem like a fleabite.  Isn't it extremely obvious that we need cooperation, not deliberate antagonism (and for no other reason than that all the others are doing it). Where's your sense of the bigger picture?  Rise above this.  JackofOz 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the internet, not humanity's grim struggle to survive against the unforgiving environment or alien invasion. People have always walked all over other people; the internet just puts that power in the hands of the people skilled in the art of flaming. It's not mass delusion, it's mass intimidation, and that's always how things have been done. It's not obvious at all to me that we need cooperation.. even taking this argument out of where it belongs -a specific discussion about net culture- I don't think people are ready for "all humanity united in love".. medicine is still driven by disease, engineering is still driven by war, and technology is still driven by capitalist competition. But like I said, keep it confined to the internet- on the internet, who cares? --⁪frothT 07:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody cares, what's the point?  And if nobody cares enough to be offended by it, then it ceases to be rudeness and becomes just part of that sector of the internet culture.  Continuing to call it "rudeness" in such circumstances is actually misleading.  The problem is, if you become immune to rudeness there, and import it into other places on the net where rudeness is not part of the culture, as if it were still "expected (and perfectly fine)", then it has negative effects.  I care about that.  JackofOz 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, yes you might have a case there but FWIW I think it's probably inevitable that Wikipedia surrender to the rest of internet culture --⁪frothT 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will never agree to that.  If rudeness ever become the lingua franca of Wikipedia, I'm outta here.  And what a catastrophic loss that would be! JackofOz 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Though the "Thank You" thread is indeed an interesting one, that wasn't really the thrust of my question/gripe. Perhaps my title "Ungrateful OPs" was misleading. It's not really the lack of gratitude in the form of a "thank you" that bothers me nearly as much as the fact that OPs so often don't bother providing follow-up clarifications of their often unintelligible questions, or any sort of feedback as to the usefulness of a good faith attempt to answer their questions, especially on those occasions when I specifically ask for it, that's my main gripe. Like I said, I consider my attempts at responding to questions to be a matter of "continuous learning". The "Thank You" aspect is just an additional bonus, one that I didn't even originally bring up. Loomis 12:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! In that case, I suppose if an OP wants a good answer, they'll pose a good question; if we request additional specification and they do not provide it, maybe they meant for their question to be vague and general, opening up the possibility of a wide variety of answers. At least, that's the reason I would do that. V-Man737 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a question that involves a lot of my time to answer, I usually ask for a clarification first, even when it's possible to answer without the clarification.  This ensures that the person who asked the question really is paying attention.  I fear that many people post their question on multiple forums, and don't ever come back to Wikipedia if they get their answer elsewhere, and I don't intend to waste my time on such people. StuRat 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrateful OPs 

message: Whoever messageed me anonymously about the RD header, my response is at your IP address's talk page so check it. --⁪frothT 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Whoever 

message: :::Anyway, I am also personally annoyed by the frequently perceived stance of any contradiction between "innocence" and sexuality. 惑乱 分からん 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Wakuran, I did not understand what you are annoyed of. Can you say it in simpler english? Jormix 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <personal attacks removed - Corvus cornix 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment removed from misc desk 

message: Minor change--VectorPotential 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page. --⁪frothT 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never had any issues in the past with making unilateral formatting changes to RD templates, I practically rewrote the entire archive system by hand, no one minded then--VectorPotentialTalk 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that I was making changes at the same time. And we were involved in a discussion on the issue as you were making changes --⁪frothT 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that that was actually a problem, but I was juggling a large change around and the message to your talk page was just a quick "cut it out you're messing me up". You're totally free to improve my code now, or to edit Wikipedia:Reference_desk/headercfg (although I'd prefer you go through the color collaboration) --⁪frothT 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #FFFFFF 

message: Yikes! Looks like a month without Martin's bot has really fowled the archives, it's going to be virtually impossible to correct all the archives so that navigation is possible, it might be better to lump this month's archives into a single section, then start a brand new archive section following once RefDeskBot is back online.  --VectorPotentialTalk 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had Werdnabot dump questions into Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities/February Werdnabot Archives which really confused things. Now the questions are in not organized by date. --The Dark Side 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving 2

message: The style change section has kind of inched half of the way up the page so to call people's attention to it..
::Go Here!
--⁪frothT 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colo(u)r Collaboration 

message: Hi - I'm now back, and will be able to run the bot back as normal soon.  I'm just posting here to look for help to get all of the desks to a stage where their oldest day is Feb. 21 - I'm not sure what archiving procedure is in place now, without the bot, and going through each one individually to get the days up to date using the bot is very difficult and time consuming.  I'd hugely apppreciate if people would archive what they can using the current system, and I'll then be able to get the bot back up and running .  Thanks, Martinp23 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Computing, after getting fed up with the absurd length it had (nobody else had archived it after the bot stopped), I took over manual archiving and was trying to mimic your bot as closely as possible; looks like the bot already took over without many problems. I don't know about the others; you might want to ask as a "question" in each one, since I'm sure the archivers are monitoring them much more closely than this talk page (in fact, I noticed your bot resuming the archiving, and would not have noticed your message here otherwise). --cesarb 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - will do.  I started on the Computing desk purely because it's at the top of the bot's job list, and was then planning to be able to do archives on the other desks, really expecting that all of the desks would be up to the same date.  Thanks, Martinp23 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start on the archiving of the language desk.-Andrew c 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science and Humanities are on the 26th. Is that a problem? Just Maths left to go. Skittle 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've archived Maths through February 20.  --LambiamTalk 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving help 

message: Werdnabot just yanked a question,  at 15:26 on March 1 about "Reinforcing WWII bombers" which was  posted 21:58 on Feb 27 on the Humanities Desk. Why is it being archived so soon? It was only up less than 42 hours before being archived. Could we please leave questions up for several days so people can respond to them and read the responses without digging into the archives? 2 days is 2 soon. How long are they supposed to stay up?Edison 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worse than that.  Most of February has vanished altogether.  Try looking in the archive.  Clio the Muse 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have RefDeskBot back, someone should really call off Werdnabot or we're going to wind up with conflicting archives--VectorPotentialTalk 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all the Werdnabot calls for now, assuming RefDeskBot begins normal operations within the next few days we shouldn't need them anymore. Now all we need to do is resolve the existing archives for the month of February, which are not only a mess, but apparently different for each desk--VectorPotentialTalk 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RefDeskBot can only begin operations again when all the reference desks are at the same date; see the section above. --cesarb 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Werdnabot doesn't archive by date, it archives by most recent activity, by that process the desks will never even out. The remaining archiving is going to have to be filled out by hand, I'll be willing to do this latter tonight when I have more time--VectorPotentialTalk 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The archived QAs for 22 to 25 February are still AWOL; at least I can't trace them.  Clio the Muse 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, don't blame Werdna bot for all your problems. The archive page vanished due to RefDesk Bot. See the History. --Parker007 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case the whole thing is a complete mess.  Some material seems to have gone for good.  Clio the Muse 02:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No material is gone for good. Links? --Parker007 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where to begin, Parker.  I was looking earlier for a response I gave not long ago on convict transports to Australia (not the one on the present Humanities RD), but I can't trace it, and I don't remember the date.  There was also a lengthy discussion on Voting for Abstensionist Parties, which is also missing.  I see the issue has now been raised by another user on the Humanities Page itself in relation to a question about a Canadian politician.  Material seems to be plucked out at random and then simply dumped without date reference, that is if it is saved at all.  What happened to the old system of archiving?  It seemed much simpler.  Clio the Muse 02:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You may find it here :). --Parker007 06:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks! Clio the Muse 06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completely reintegrated the Miscellaneous archives up to the 28th, although a few of the questions are still out of sequence--VectorPotentialTalk 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole process was a bit tedious, so could someone else take a look at my recent contributions and see if they can't do the same reintegration for science and humanities desks which were also archived semi-randomly by Wednabot --VectorPotentialTalk 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Werdnabot run amuck

message: It seems that as of now we're finally in place to begin regular archiving again, with the Entertainment, Computing, Language, and Mathematics desks as well as the Help Desk all archived to the 21st, and Science, Humanities, and Miscellaneous are archived through the 28th--VectorPotentialTalk 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness for that! Clio the Muse 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I'm going to start now, and get it back up and running 100% tomorrow.  Martinp23 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - March 3 headers are in place.  --hydnjo talk 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving, Part III 

message: I see archived material, going back to 21 February, has now reappeared on the Humanities RD.  I'm not complaining: I though the cut off at the end of February was a little too quick.  But I would just like to know what is going on and make a plea for some kind of consistency in the matter.  Clio the Muse 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - I'vejust got the bot ready to run on time tonight at midnight (UTC).  The reason that the 21st was there (twice) for a while (and still is), is that the daily page transclusions required by the bot to work properly are (for those from Feb.), redirected to the full archive page.  All will be back to normal this evening.  VectorP - huge thanks for all of your help spotting and fixing my own errors . Martinp23 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving-yet again! (yawn) 

message: Why is the flag of Vietnam used as logo of the computing desk? David  21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *For comparison, the flag of Vietnam --VectorPotentialTalk 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo of the computing desk 

message: WP:FPC has just implemented a skip to function at the top of the page that allows you to go straight to the most recent picture added.  I was wondering what you guys might think of a skip to most recent question/day link at the the top of each respective reference desk category page (see WP:FPC for an example)? --Cody.Pope 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds unneeded, to me, as the "End" key (on the keyboard right above the "up arrow" key) will take you directly to the bottom of the page in most browsers, where the latest question is sure to be found. StuRat 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skipping to most recent day/question? 

message: New template that can be used for creating floating links to the Reference Desk, works well on user and user_talk pages, sort of like a userbox, only without the box. Feel free to change the picture--VectorPotentialTalk 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but what do I actually type on my home page to get it to work ?   doesn't seem to work. StuRat 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would type , template:tl is just a template designed to display other templates--VectorPotentialTalk 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what it does now.  Instead of putting the template where you added it, it places a pic of a helium atom in the upper, right corner of the page, and you click on that to get to the Ref Desk. StuRat 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey VP I've done this for awhile on my userpage. The smaller icons in the upper right are much more common on WP and look better so I changed it to my style. Not exactly sure how to use imagemaps so I just used my version with the click template. Also changed it to the ? icon but whatever is fine --⁪frothT 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:RefDesk|RefDesk]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> 

message: Is there a policy about what happens when a question is posted to the wrong desk?  The Language desk recently had a question "DVD - burnt vs blank", which turned out to be one for the Science or Computing desks.  Some good answers were given, and only later did the issue of it being on the wrong desk come up.  Some regulars lurk around only 1 or 2 desks that relate to their interests and knowledge, so maybe this would have had an even better answer if if had been removed from Language and reposted to a more appropriate location.  Should we do that unilaterally, ask the questioner to repost, or what?  JackofOz 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation is to move the post, but leave a comment and pointer to it in the original place in order to prevent confusion.  IMO it's unhelpful to reply and say "go somewhere else, you're in the wrong place" - in the time it takes to do this, you could move it, which is much preferable.  Friday (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've noticed that whether or not someone tells them they're in the wrong place, people will answer the question. The way I usualyl handle it is that I copy the question (and any answers that might have beaten mine) to the more appropriate desk, leaving a pointer as Friday said. V-Man737 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is ideal, but I rarely take on the effort myself.  My attitude is that, if they can't be bothered to post to the correct desk, then I can't be troubled to fix their mistake.  If they receive less helpful results because they misposted, that's their fault, maybe they will post it correctly the next time.  However, I have no objection if somebody else wants to move it (with a link, that is).  Moving things without a link should be avoided. StuRat 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions posted to the wrong desk

message: I'm glad to see that some kind of order has come back to the automated archiving.  But would it be possible to have slightly longer intervals before items are removed from current consideration?  Ideally, I would suggest a seven day period prior to archiving. It seems a pity to allow such short time intervals, especially when useful additional information looks like coming forward.  I know discussion can continue in the archive, if people are so minded; but there hardly seems much point.  Clio the Muse 08:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem we had when setting up the bot was just this - deciding on the time intervals.  After tests and due consideration, it was found the 7 days could make the desks completely useless when edit conflicts take pace, and take far too long to load.  Until recently, the science, misc and humanities desks we are the same archival interval as the oters, but again we were having page loading problems.  The only way (I can see) to have more days on the desks would be to get more desks to spread the questions out a bit, so that the pages are still useable for dial-up visitors. Martinp23 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This being the case, I've taken to posting a "Go to" message on the Talk page of the User to whose query or comment I've responded, to serve as a head's up and handy link. You'll find the formatted message here; the redlinks require substitution with the particular WP:RD and archive date, respectively. Just an idea; others are welcome to adopt/adapt/ignore as they see fit. -- Deborahjay 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving intervals 

message: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#This_is_getting_strange: Keeping the discussion centralized--VectorPotentialTalk 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database scrambled/ Missing edit histories 

message: I think we need to shut down the Reference Desks until this database issue has been sorted out. Is there any mechanism in place to do so?--VectorPotentialTalk 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nevermind, I think it's fixed now--VectorPotentialTalk 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of the Reference Desk Pages have massive edit histories