Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 24

message: It seems I have bad luck with replying to questions that are at the bottom of the page.  Most of the time when I try to submit my response I'm told there's an edit conflict.  The conflict is because someone has either edited the last question to add a new question or edited the whole page to add their new question.  Am I the only one that's frustrated by this?  Dismas|(talk) 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no--Light current 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It does happen to me but it doesn't bother me. I just hit the back button once, copy my reply, hit the back button once more, go into the edit of the question again, paste and save. I have another trick, which is that whenever I edit a section, I hit the 'spacebar' before typing my edit summary. Why? That means that every time I go back and edit the section again, when I hit the spacebar it shows me a drop list of all previous edit summaries for that section. So if I took the time to type something massive then 'lose' it due to an edit conflict, it isn't really lost. Also keeps me from being repetitive. Unless I want to be. Repetitive, that is. Because I hate to repeat myself. Except when I do. Want to, that is. Repeat myself, that is. Anchoress 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool advice, that thing with the spacebar, I had no idea. (You don't want to be repetitive in your edit summaries???) ---Sluzzelin 04:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx. ;-)) And yeah, it bugs me when I say the same thing over and over in edit summaries. Anchoress 05:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on the spacebar deal.  That should come in handy. Dismas|(talk) 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My best, most carefully researched and revised posts are invariably eaten with some stupid message that Wikipedia does not respond or some such nonsense. This is in addition to edit conflicts. The edit conflict produces a second window at the bottom of the screen with my unsaved post, but then I have to scroll around a mass of unarchived Q & A to again find the place where I was trying to add a response, and then there is often a second edit conflict. Invariably, the times when Wikipedia is not responding and the post is simply lost are the occasions where I forgot to save a copy to the clipboard before trying to save to Wikipedia. The other frustrating thing is when I go back to insert something in a post which has not yet been saved, and the PC jumps out of insert mode, so I overtype the end of my previous message. I press "Insert" and it inserts for a while, then it goes back to overtype mode. In my previous post, this overtype phenomenon happened 3 times. The "back" button takes me to a screen before I typed anything. This seems to have gotten worse since an update to Internet Explorer a few weeks ago. Edison 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to check your internet settings in Explorer. Make sure "check for new versions of stored pages" is set to "never". Then the back button should take you back to your edit page with your original edits intact.--Shantavira 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have to recreate it, it becomes a second draft and is probably more polished and shorter. But I hate to lose the fruits of research, with links to Wikipedia articles and reliable sources from the internet. I will try changing the settings, but I can't find the setting you describe under Tools-Internet. Where is ?Thanks. Edison 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In IE 6 it's Tools | Internet Options | Settings.--Shantavira 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this happen to anyone else? 

message: I asked my question here because I DID NOT GET AN ANSWER AT THE LANGUAGE DESK. Why on earth did you move the question back thare?!? I know it's linguistic, but I DID NOT GET AN ANSWER. Hence, I moved it here to the humanities, in the hope of getting a religions expert's answer.--Snowgrouse 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Snowgrouse. I moved your question to the most appropriate place for you to get an answer. If nobody responds I'm afraid it means that no one here knows. As per the instructions, we prefer people not to double post.--Shantavira 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lack of immediately spouting off opinion at every single opportunity is perhaps the main difference the RD has from things like Yahoo! Answers. (Can you smell the disdain?!) Sometimes in the RD, questions just don't get answered. We strive to get all of them, but occasionally we get some really good ones that are difficult to research. Usually if a small, polite reminder (in conventional capitalization) is posted some time later, editors who've not seen the question before may take a crack at it. ^_^ V-Man737 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jai Mata Di

message: martianlostinspace 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think everything up to and including Restoration_of_dangerous_incorrect_information_and_argument can be archived without anyone protesting. As far as I'm concerned quite a bit more can be archived, but then I always like the clean slate. I can't archive myself on this computer or operating system or whatever is the problem, it can't handle chunks of this size.  ---Sluzzelin 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people should feel free to archive any threads that haven't been discussed in a day or two, whenever they think the page is too long. -- SCZenz 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Long

message: Looking in the archives it seems jan 18 to jan 28 has dissapeared...87.102.33.144 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done up to Jan 25th. Skittle 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm very sorry about the RefDesk archival problems recently.  As a result of the overhead phone line which I use going down, I only had intermittent internet access for a few weeks, making it near impossible to run the bot unless in debug mode, to counter any internet outages.  As of Friday, the whole connection dropped, and is unlikely to be repaired until the end of next week, and so my internet access is limited, and is not on my "bot" system.  Can I suggest that those who can, do the manual archives to the daily archive pages, and transculde them in the same manner as the bot would.  It's probably too much time wasted putting all of the topics into the TOC on the monthly pages, so I'll code the bot to complete that page when my internet is back up.  Again, my apologies for this. Martinp23 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_January_19_to_25 --Parker007 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_26_%26_27 --Parker007 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_28_&_29 --Parker007 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_30_to_31 --Parker007 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Manually Archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_20_to_31 --Parker007 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MANUAL ARCHIVING 

message: This time as "Garb wire", see Special:Contributions/Garb_wire.  We should take care how we respond. Friday (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transparent ban evasion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe Kjvenus is back 

message: (Note:  This relates to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Valentine_day_concept. 
Moved (most of it at least) from my talk page --Justanother 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am insulted by Hipocrite's preemptive strike which assumes that the RD editors cannot add to the discussion of those questions without violating the principles that we have spent months discussing! Especially as the worst offenders are seriously chastized. I am insulted. If the question or part of the question is offensive then remove it but don't try to "be the boss of us". I am a grown-up and the only boss-of-me pays me a lot of money. That was mild compared to what I really think. --Justanother 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you disagree, there are better ways to express that.  I don't see that anyone was chastised- I just see someone trying to nip this in the bud.  If everyone had the sense not to respond to trolling, that would be ideal, but we've seen over and over that this isn't the case.  I don't see why you'd take this personally- is there something I missed?  This could have been removed IMO but removals have raised a huge stink.  I thought the preference lately was to do things other than outright removal.  Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS- Actually, I suppose the merits of Hipocrite's template ought to be discussed at WT:RD.  Friday (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing personal but the implied assumption that "OK, one grownup answered the question and I don't trust the rest of you." But I am not a on a crusade and I expressed my displeasure already and to the degree that I care to. I just want it on record that, as a precedent, IMO Hipocrite's action stinks. I think removal of the porn part or division into two questions would have been better had someone wanted to address it. I never even saw it before Hipocrite did his thing so I do not know what I might have done; likely divided into two questions. --Justanother 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think we should discourage people from responding in cases like this?  Is there some better way to do it?  Friday (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Development of policy and enforcement of policy, in a nutshell. Removal of inappropriate questions and inappropriate responses. Exactly the direction we were moving in, I thought. --Justanother 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps another feels as I do and can explain it better. Or maybe I am alone in my opinion. Yes, you are right about meta-discussion. --Justanother 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hipocrite, I agree with you that there has been inappropriate behavior on the RD. I just strongly disagree that the solution is for any one editor to close the discussion. If the question or response is inappropriate it should be removed. I do that (for example). But no-one needs to tell us that we "are done now". --Justanother 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A removal, or an archive as Hipocrite did, both mean "I think we should be done with this and not respond further", right?  Aren't we just quibbling over formatting?  Friday (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it that way. Removal to me means "I think this is an inappropriate question". That is OK with me; if I disagree I will reverse it or discuss. "Archiving" says to me "I guess this is an appropriate question but I just don't trust you'all to keep it clean". Big diff to me. Should never be done so it is not about me reversing it. But I have gone over this enough. Maybe I am alone in my feeling. I am on record, that is enough for me. I'm out now as I have some work to do for the real boss-of-me. --Justanother 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I think posting a template is the worst of all options. ---Sluzzelin 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you included me in those "tearing into you", your assumption is wrong. I most likely wont defend you. I might offer my opinion though, the way I did just now. ---Sluzzelin 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hipocrite's [[preemptive strike]] 

message: <edit conflict> Why remove my careful, considered responses? Worse, in Hipocrite's replacement answer, describing the OP's position "Likudnik" is beyond POV it's utterly factually incorrect and insulting to the millions of Israelis who voted Likud since its formation. I've never met an Israeli, regardless of political affiliation who would fit within the OP's description. --Dweller 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at the question and tried to seperate wheat from chaff - what follows is my alternative. Remove Dweller's comments with prejudice, remove Ricardo's comments with prejudice, remove Proto's comments without prejudice, leaving only the question, unanswered. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer is utterlyand iredeemably prejudiced to the point of it being untrue. Mine was accurate. --Dweller 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But Dweller, you weren't answering the question.  You were editorializing about how the editor's statement wasn't realistic; that's a very poor way to deal with what was, in all likelihood, trolling. -- SCZenz 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume good faith that the questioner misunderstands what a Zionist is. Hipocrite fundamentally misunderstands what Likud means and should remove or modify his answer immediately as it is factually incorrect (something he himself has previously berated other users for doing in the past) hopelessly POV and insulting to millions of Israelis. --Dweller 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Dweller's answer to be the best of the lot. He stuck to the Zionist theme. --Justanother 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here are some examples of Likudnik being used as a slightly derogatory phtase for people who agree with all of the policies of Israel but don't live there: ... Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an article on likudnik is in order since the current link to likud just doesn't explain the term at all.87.102.13.26 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You clearly are misunderstanding. I suggest you ignore all evil motives you presume to ascribe to me and read only the words that I wrote - "One somewhat-derogatory phrase for this is Likudnik." You, of course, are aware that some use that phrase to describe it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - because the answer gave me the impression that a lidkudnik was "someone who lives overseas and blindly supports the State of Israel"87.102.13.26 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Dweller, you were giving your view of his own stated opinion.  He didn't say he was a zionist, he gave his opinion and asked if he was one.   Still, upon reflection, I think you were going in the right direction by clarifying that Zionists don't have to believe what he does. -- SCZenz 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hipocrite's edit

message: Here's the best I can come up with:
:Supporting the State of Israel is what defines a zionist, but most self-described zionists do not give the blind support that you describe. See zionist to learn about what the term usually means.
And then we should, ideally, have more or less left it at that. -- SCZenz 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that answer. Friday (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would add that "unwavering" support can be seen as a positive, see patriot, or a negative, see fanaticism, depending on point-of-view. --Justanother 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, if Proto had responded to my mention that such stands often are consistent with zealotry or fanaticism with his position that it could well be termed patriotism then I would have agreed and we would have moved toward a more complete answer which is how this darn exercise works! --Justanother 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, I think that is a more neutral way of putting it than people managed at the time.  Since both those words have strong negative/positive connotations, presenting both together and avoiding indicating your own viewpoint is important. -- SCZenz 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did not indicate my viewpoint on Israel though I likely did on "unthinking allegiance" so if you meant that then right. I think Proto misinterpreted and over-reacted to my comment, that is all. --Justanother 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, for my part, I think the objectionable bit is my failure to use the "proper" passive voice. Instead of "You sound more like . . ."; I could have said "It is sometimes considered that those that offer support "without question" as part of their "belief system" are expressive of a stand that some might consider . . ." Means the same thing. 'Scuse me for being blunt (smile). --Justanother 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we could have said 

message: I have already stated my objection to the "archive - all done now" solution. So do we remove the post or answer it?
*Very weak remove --Justanother 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the reference desk to be able to handle even dubious questions like this with maturity.  I am tempted to suggest that we start from scratch and try again, as practice, but I fear it would lead to more arguments. -- SCZenz 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I accept that the current answer is fair and even and good eg   acceptable http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=106090505&oldid=106088300 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.13.26 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we can take that as "remove" (smile). --Justanother 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I felt someone had "archived" a discussion just to have the last word, or because the question was contrary to their personal viewpoint but actually in accord with the generally accepted rules of the Reference Desk, I would feel quite free to respond or to "unarchive" it.  It should not be a tool for silencing reasonable questions or for "having the last word." In the recent question about Zionism the question seemed to be argumentative and inappropriate and the answer before archiving seemed reasonable, but the archiving headed off a flame war. Refer the questioner to the Wikipedia pages most relevant. Many newcomers will expect this to be just another blog where people can rant and rave and post boilerplate proofs of this or that. I think we can use this technique to head that off. Edison 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or no? 

message: I removed this harmless question 
" food for big breast
my girlfriend doesn't have big breast, and she wants to make them big. she doesn't want to undergo breast implant. she's resorting to natural means. is there any food (vegetables or fruit maybe) that will help in making girls' breasts big? thank you."
Was that right - I think I am old enough to be able to detect 14 year old boys giggling at the back of the class or very similar... I have assumed good faith - and in good faith I know the question to be a 'silly' one. I hope this is ok.83.100.251.239 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this a bit extreme, it might have just as easily been an honest question. It's better to leave questions like that on, what harm does it do? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds kind of creepy to me... V-Man737 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think fat would definitely do the trick. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal from science desk

message: From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#changing iris colour
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=106395547&oldid=106394602
Bit of a lapse...(we have your names..(joke))83.100.250.165 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another removal

message: I don't think this could in any way be construed as medical advice, it's sharing common knowledge. And - I'm not in the US, it is highly unlikely I could be sued (from my understanding of the discussions on this talk page personal liability is the main consideration, Wikipedia is not responsible), and I just don't care either way. It was a legitimate, valid answer to the question containing non-advice that is unobtainable without seeing a doctor anyway. Natgoo 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  You were giving your opinion about what advice a doctor would give.  To me, this is close enough to medical advice that it's best not to say things like that.  Friday (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus 'ural' is not an antibiotic.. making any info given dubious....87.102.37.185 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused by this too, but I think it was a list of things, not implying that ural is the antibiotic.  Friday (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes - re-reading it was a list - didn't spot that.87.102.37.185 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess I don't see why common knowledge can't be shared, when we have been told there is no threat to the project. There really is very little else you can do for that sort of infection, and Jpgordon had already recommended a visit to the doctor - my comment was in addition and appropriate. Natgoo 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is exactly and only medical advice couched in roundabout terms. I could care less personally but if we are not giving medical advice then what say we don't. My main thing is simply that it is OK to have rules and to enforce them. --Justanother 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And to clarify my point, let me make a minor change "...which is most likely to my prescription would be a general antibiotic, a product to make your urine less acidic such as Ural and plenty of water and rest." --Justanother 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually there are lots of things you can do without using antibiotics (I have a great remedy I use that works most of the time). But I'm not a doctor and it's a folk remedy, so it'll stay in the file folder in my bookshelf. ;-) BTW my $.02 is that the removed entry wasn't at the egregious end of medical advice, but it was drawing a conclusion and it really didn't add anything to the discussion. I'm not voting yay or nay on whether the deletion was justified, but I myself have been making a concerted effort over the past weeks to restrain myself from adding... my $.02 lol. Anchoress 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your remedy dark red and tastes purty bad (smile - though I don't mind it too much; my ex made a big deal out of the taste)? I like Natgoo's current response and it should be "template" for medical questions, i.e. point at the article. --Justanother 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol You think cranberry juice tastes bad??? Hmmm, I love it. But no, cranberry juice isn't my remedy. It works OK, but not as well as my way. Will check the latest entry. Anchoress 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You like straight cranberry juice? Not the cranberry juice cocktail from the supermarket but the pure stuff from the health food store? Well, then you are hard core, my dear (smile). I can drink it down but wouldn't say I like it. The ex had to mix it with something. --Justanother 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I mix it with water, is that what you mean? It'd make me vomit if I drank it straight, but it's not because of the taste. Anchoress 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw, she was mixing it with something else, can't remember what. Not water. I used some myself about a year ago; just chugged it down. Worked great. --Justanother 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vodka. V-Man737 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops, sorry for the chatting, y'all. I have to get back to work anyway. --Justanother 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay I accept the admonishment - I just don't see the need to be so carefully in fear of litigation when the potential for adverse effects (to the project and the questioner) is so minimal, but if that's the line the community has drawn I'll toe it. And I mix straight cranberry juice with soda water and lime juice for a healthful virgin cosmopolitan :) Natgoo 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical advice?

message: Is there a reason the reference desk for Computing/IT is becoming so large? Is there really a need to keep discussions from as far back as January 20? It's causing long load times, at least on my computer (though probably not on the computers of people who answer at that desk). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot that archives the reference desks is temporarily out of service. Right now all reference desks must be archived by hand. --The Dark Side 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadband or DSL will solve the slow loading problem. Edison 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just archived the rest of January by hand, halving its size; do you have any idea on when will the bot (or a replacement bot) be back up? I shudder thinking how many edit conflicts I caused with my slow hand-archiving. --cesarb 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive the computing/IT desk 

message: Sorry folks, I removed some comments here. This is because the questioner sounded confused enough already, and I thought the comments people had made (including an internal Wikipedia link) would confuse them further. Hope this hasn't upset anyone. Skittle 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed some comments 

message: It was getting ridiculously long (almost 500k), so I archived the rest of January. Dave6 talk 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous desk 

message: Presented here because it seems to belong here.
:== Articles for creation ==
:So you submit an article for creation; over 90% of them are rejected, and the other few % are accepted. What about the ones that have been sitting there for months that have not been accepted or rejected?
:: Good question.  The thing is that the people who patrol that list are humans just like you and me - and it's a thankless task.
:: I patrolled that list for a long while.  The problem is that way more than 95% of the submissions are complete junk.  So many articles about bands and songs and albums that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.  So many efforts of people to start articles about themselves or their family members or (worst of all) recent dead family members who they'd like to memorialise in some way.  But Wikipedia has rules about what people are "notable" and we have to reject the ones that are quite simply not relevent to the encyclopedia.  You get to dread article proposals that start "Johnnie was a good son, right up to when he died in Iraq last week..." and goes on to list lots of banal trivia about this guy.  Sure he was probably brave and gave his life for his country - but Wikipedia's article guidelines specifically rule out articles like this unless the person was NOTABLE.   OK - so this is a non-article.  Do you want to tell the grieving mother that her son was not notable?   I didn't think so.   But it's the same for bands - someone is a fan of a really obscure band who made a few CD's to hand out to fans at gigs they played at some minor venue - it's hard to tell those fans that this band is a bunch of total no-hopers who don't rate an article.   But rules are rules - so you try your best to be polite and helpful and tactful.
:: Well, when you go through that list day after day, it starts off being reasonable to do "due diligence" for each and every article, double checking that the person they are talking about truly is notable - or that the rock band has had two or more albums released by a major record label - or that some artist has been exhibited in some major exhibition...or whatever the guidelines are.  But after a few weeks of this, it just gets unbearable because it takes four hours out of your life every evening doing nothing but finding reasons to reject crap!  You can usually tell within 10 seconds of looking at a proposed article that it doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being a valid article - and frankly, it's not even worth the 10 to 20 minutes it's going to take you to check, prove it and post a coherent response saying "This person/band/company/whatever isn't notable".
:: In the end, you go through the list (which is dozens and dozens of proposals every day) ignoring the 'no hope' proposals, researching (and replying) to the ones that might just have had a chance - and ultimately being overjoyed when you find a speck of gold that you can pick out and turn into an article.  But it's unusual to find even one solid proposal per day - so a few things that perhaps are marginal make it in, lots more that were worth researching get a nice rejection message and lots of completely and obviously junk ones go completely ignored.  Other ones that tend to get ignored tend to be the long quasi-religious or pseudo-science diatribes that it's just too much effort to debunk.  Some are just so incoherent that it's impossible to understand what the person is ranting on about - much less come up with a reason why it can't be an article.  It's just easier to ignore them.
:: Yeah - it's not a perfect process - lots of people are in favor of just shutting down the entire service.   Bottom line - if you are serious about Wikipedia and have a solid article you'd like to submit, just sign up for an account.  It takes you 10 minutes - and four days later you have the same privilages as someone who has been here since the very beginning.  Meanwhile, skim the notability standards - and PLEASE don't create articles that are junk - the effort to clean them up is sapping the energy of otherwise useful editors. SteveBaker 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Steve, I hardly know where to begin. That was so damn eloquent that I wish I could borrow your brain now and again. I've not been active at WP for a few weeks and have just returned to find your gem above. Well put! I suspected that on my return I'd find a post such as yours that would provide an example of what many of us mean when we say common sense and which sometimes is deliberately confounded with excuses and word-smithing.  Thank you for your frank assessment.  hydnjo talk 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: addendum: For those who don't know what I'm talking about, see this academic  discussion.  hydnjo talk 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question and my response copied from the /M page to here for any further discussion. hydnjo talk 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from the /M desk:

message: I have an idea that can be fun and improve the project at the same time! Each day, let's start a new article or series of articles based on the questions asked on the ref desks. So if a question is asked that reveals an area that needs new articles, we ref desk volunteers can have some fun stubbing it out and fleshing it in. The topic should be non-controversial. Since this is my idea, I will go first: Guard tour patrol system. Gets into fun stuff like Watchclock. Atlant is already helping! What do you think? --Justanother 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very good idea; topics posted on the various Reference Desks often provoke at least some editing of the existing articles and I wouldn't be surprised to find that we could discover "missing articles" as well; thanks for starting us! :Atlant 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this helps rationalise the very existence of the Ref Desks, so I'm all for it. --Dweller 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the idea flies, a template for the talk page, explaining the genesis of the page would help draw attention to the concept. --Dweller 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! And we can set a few simple guidelines. Like the first one someone suggests that seems viable is what we go with - let's not get complex with votes and polls. And the theme should include at least one new article! --Justanother 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I LOVE the idea. There are actually several articles I could suggest (would have to go through my recent contributions to find them). Anchoress 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been hanging around here for years waiting for a topic that wiki doesn't have an article on that I could actually write. Still waiting. You can take that as an I will help too.87.102.16.197 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a bit of reading on the net and start the article on watchclock --Justanother 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference desk is what prompted me to start bedtime. RAWK! V-Man737 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a great idea, I was going to suggest it. Can it be a creation/improvement page? So we can link to threads that include info that could be used to improve existing articles? Anchoress 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And find the questions which is very important from the archives, and try to solve them. Eh, you know what if there aint no studies out there, we should do a study (regarding science questions) or pass it on to some proffessors, or make an article regarding a related study. Hurray we all scientists now :). Or Scholars if we make articles regarding "non technical" stuff--Parker007 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wonderful idea! ---Sluzzelin 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spotting needed articles is a great function for RD, and the person who can answer a question about the topic is probably a good one to write the article. A link to the original q and a on RD should be on the talk page of the article. It would be good if there were some statement that the article is created due to a Ref Desk Q and A, and that it is under active development, so as to make it less likely some New Article patroller will try to delete it instantly before it is fleshed out. I suggest writing the intial stub offline on your word processor or in your user sandbox, to keep it out of the clutches of New Article Patrol until you have added a couple of references (you do use inline references, right? to multiple reliable sources independent of the subject?) Another obvious RD function is to go to the relevant Wikipdeia article and improve it so as to make it easier for the next questioner to find it on his own, or so it is less confusing. Edison 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe just make it Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk and have it include people that do answer-patrol as well as people who make articles based on the RD? Or alternatively if you really need a "fun" name, how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Purple People Eaters? --Maelwys 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd get complaints from purple people (smile). --Justanother 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest mentioning this application as part of an existing article (probably compressed air) rather than making an article just about this.  Friday (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there isn't an article on compressed air, it's a disambig page. Anchoress 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't catch this but I guess you mean this thing. Is it notable enough to have its own article? Yes, if it is widely sold and used. --Justanother 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Team 

message: Hi. So my first thought was:
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Team
But now I think this is better?
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
Both of those are a bit stodgy and I would love a funner name but sometimes people do not so much agree with "fun" names and stodgy is safe :-(
I would not like to see us choose a name that we later have to change.
Any other ideas or comments on the above? --Justanother 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just make it Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk and have it include people that do answer-patrol as well as people who make articles based on the RD? Or alternatively if you really need a "fun" name, how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Purple People Eaters? --Maelwys 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd get complaints from purple people (smile). --Justanother 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Name? 

message: Because I have an entry. Don't know what to call it, but I'm pretty sure we don't have an article on it yet; compressed air cannisters for plugged drains. I've looked in compressed air, drain cleaners, and plungers. Also, those entries can all be cross-referenced in the See Also section. See Blocked sink. Anchoress 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest mentioning this application as part of an existing article (probably compressed air) rather than making an article just about this.  Friday (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there isn't an article on compressed air, it's a disambig page. Anchoress 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't catch this but I guess you mean this thing. Is it notable enough to have its own article? Yes, if it is widely sold and used. --Justanother 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we have one yet?