Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 9

message: Anyone interested in joining the Association of Reference Desk Employees should probably drop by meta:Association of Reference Desk Employees. You can add yourself by doing an interwiki link instead of four tildes; just put Username ~~~~~ where your signature would normally go. Regulars are encouraged to apply... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 13:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL...I've been waiting 8 months to see something like this pop up...oh, we Wikipedians are so special!!! :-) --HappyCamper 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats the latest update on the transition to new categories?--Urthogie 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The feedback I got from the side was that there wasn't too much enthusiasm for the move right now. I think it would be a good idea to keep that template tucked away for now...I'm not sure what to do now. Maybe leave things as is, and work on the bot? :-) --HappyCamper 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARDE 

message: ===Support the above template===
#Urthogie 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if new kids post obvious questions, at least the cruft will be divided evenly between the people who watch various desks.  Currently, when you watch humanities, you'll get way too many cruft questions, because its such a broad category.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The most active folks patrolling here can be seen contributing at all of the desks.  hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can indeed. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you explain why you think its not good to have so many cats?  By the way, I also added that homework help link as you suggested.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me: why not then split the Math desk into Math (1 thru 12) and Math (College and above) so as to relieve the burden on us math wizards? Just kidding of course.  :-)  hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you're joking, but this allows me to specify my point-- the line between math and technology is clear cut-- however, the line between college level math and high school math is often not. I'm sure you can see the common sense in this, right?--Urthogie 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and my obvious exaggeration was just that. :-)  hydnjo talk 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So whats the common sense reason for not expanding cats?--Urthogie 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than that you don't make an express line for 3 customers? We don't get that many questions. We are near our reasonable limit, though. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll set this up.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I promise not to add any rules, or over-featurize the desk.  I'm doing this to get more people involved, mainly.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a change to the color, and I'll definitely help out through the whole time if this passes.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest I don't care what it is as long as its on the side; wikipedia helping people with their homework is not exactly umm..encyclopedic in nature.--Urthogie 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a student with a homework assignment requiring some research (in the old days) goes to the library and either finds the appropriate reference material or asks the RD librarian for some help. The RD librarian doesn't do the homework but provides guidance and direction. That is the the kind of Homework Desk that I'm envisioning. We don't do the homework but provide direction and links to either WP material or external links as appropriate. That is providing an encyclopedic service.  hydnjo talk 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The concept is not to rid ouselves of homework questions so much as to corral them. Coming to us for help shouldn't be onerous and by nature some students will do some research on their own and come to the RD when stumped while others don't have a clue. What a wonderful opportunity for us in either case.  hydnjo talk 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think your point is well taken, but aren't you kinda making the assumption that people will ignore these obvious categories while noticing the homework link?--Urthogie 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some will and some won't. But this provides a place to shuttle the "homeworks" to. That way the folks who are intolerant to those questions need not be bothered by them or dismiss them out of hand, leaving a bad impression on those genuinely seeking help.   hydnjo talk 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent logic-- thing is, thats my same reason for doing the split-- so more people are willing to watch pages and answer questions more specifically.--Urthogie 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then maybe it's just me but I've never been detered from a desk because it was too broad, just the opposite, I find the variety to be enriching. Although I patrol all of the desks my least favorite is Math because it is so disciplined. I still patrol there but it's the least interesting but still I return.  If your objective is to gather more responders by specialization then I think you're just wrong. People who are interested in helping others are willing to bypass a few questions that are not in their mainstream to reach out and help where they can. My point is, just how helpful is someone who doesn't do RD patrol because the questions there aren't right up their alley and, how helpful are they going to become when the questions are right up their alley amidst the sillys and first timers. Do you think that they will now become "converted" because the inept questions happen to be in a more specialized category?  So again my question is, what is the objective that you're trying to achieve by adding more categories?  hydnjo talk 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you have a broader knowledge of things than me-- personally I know about music enough to answer peoples questions.  No other subject, besides that really.  There's a lotta people like me.  And you could still watch multiple pages.--Urthogie 07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for ref cats 

message: #Urthogie 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the above template

message: #Oppose for the reasons stated above. FYI, the Science Desk runs between 6 and 24 questions daily which I think is about right. Also. almost all of the misplaced or silly questions are posted by new kids making their first edit, expecting a "search engine" result and not getting one most likely never return for a response. The only additional category that I support would be Homework Help where everyone could be up-front about it and our responses appropriate to that source of questions.  hydnjo talk 13:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if new kids post obvious questions, at least the cruft will be divided evenly between the people who watch various desks.  Currently, when you watch humanities, you'll get way too many cruft questions, because its such a broad category.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The most active folks patrolling here can be seen contributing at all of the desks.  hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can indeed. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you explain why you think its not good to have so many cats?  By the way, I also added that homework help link as you suggested.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me: why not then split the Math desk into Math (1 thru 12) and Math (College and above) so as to relieve the burden on us math wizards? Just kidding of course.  :-)  hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you're joking, but this allows me to specify my point-- the line between math and technology is clear cut-- however, the line between college level math and high school math is often not. I'm sure you can see the common sense in this, right?--Urthogie 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and my obvious exaggeration was just that. :-)  hydnjo talk 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So whats the common sense reason for not expanding cats?--Urthogie 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than that you don't make an express line for 3 customers? We don't get that many questions. We are near our reasonable limit, though. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the above template

message: #I would prefer a banner with fewer columns, for smaller resolution and for aesthetic reasons. Perhaps a list of rows, or dual rows of columns would be better. -- Ec5618 03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll set this up.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I promise not to add any rules, or over-featurize the desk.  I'm doing this to get more people involved, mainly.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a change to the color, and I'll definitely help out through the whole time if this passes.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest I don't care what it is as long as its on the side; wikipedia helping people with their homework is not exactly umm..encyclopedic in nature.--Urthogie 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a student with a homework assignment requiring some research (in the old days) goes to the library and either finds the appropriate reference material or asks the RD librarian for some help. The RD librarian doesn't do the homework but provides guidance and direction. That is the the kind of Homework Desk that I'm envisioning. We don't do the homework but provide direction and links to either WP material or external links as appropriate. That is providing an encyclopedic service.  hydnjo talk 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The concept is not to rid ouselves of homework questions so much as to corral them. Coming to us for help shouldn't be onerous and by nature some students will do some research on their own and come to the RD when stumped while others don't have a clue. What a wonderful opportunity for us in either case.  hydnjo talk 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think your point is well taken, but aren't you kinda making the assumption that people will ignore these obvious categories while noticing the homework link?--Urthogie 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some will and some won't. But this provides a place to shuttle the "homeworks" to. That way the folks who are intolerant to those questions need not be bothered by them or dismiss them out of hand, leaving a bad impression on those genuinely seeking help.   hydnjo talk 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent logic-- thing is, thats my same reason for doing the split-- so more people are willing to watch pages and answer questions more specifically.--Urthogie 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then maybe it's just me but I've never been detered from a desk because it was too broad, just the opposite, I find the variety to be enriching. Although I patrol all of the desks my least favorite is Math because it is so disciplined. I still patrol there but it's the least interesting but still I return.  If your objective is to gather more responders by specialization then I think you're just wrong. People who are interested in helping others are willing to bypass a few questions that are not in their mainstream to reach out and help where they can. My point is, just how helpful is someone who doesn't do RD patrol because the questions there aren't right up their alley and, how helpful are they going to become when the questions are right up their alley amidst the sillys and first timers. Do you think that they will now become "converted" because the inept questions happen to be in a more specialized category?  So again my question is, what is the objective that you're trying to achieve by adding more categories?  hydnjo talk 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you have a broader knowledge of things than me-- personally I know about music enough to answer peoples questions.  No other subject, besides that really.  There's a lotta people like me.  And you could still watch multiple pages.--Urthogie 07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Is it just me, or has just about everything become magenta and stricken out? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such problem on my end. Try CTRL-F5 or something. -- Ec5618 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Maybe someone shoved a bowl of PCP into a tape drive on one of the firewalls at Pierce College. Everything is fine at home. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonky Talk Page 

message: :Personally, I don't think this is really a problem to fix. There are many reasons why people will ask questions even though instructions are given directly to them. I will not go into the details of why this is. What I think we want the RD to be, is simply a place where we are as "customer oriented and friendly" as possible. Even if someone blatantly does not comply with the instructions at the top, as Wikipedians, we have a duty to be graceful - and this means leading by example, showing others best practices around here, and conveying this in an honest and open way. When this is done, it should come across as someone being genuinely helpful and personable, and not distant or condescending. No matter what the question is, no matter how outrageous the query is, we must assume that those who use the RD are (or can be) good faith new users - and for this reason, the onus for getting the help they need to navigate and find information around here is not on them, but on us. At least, this is how I see it, but perhaps needs a bit more rewording to put it more eloquently. BTW, less than 1% of the edits on the RD are "reverted edits vandalism". I will be bold and say that I think the RD is the most robust page on Wikipedia against vandals and WikiPolitics - and for these reasons, I love the reference desk! :-) As for the IP addresses, I have a feeling that the RD is not being accessed through internal links, but rather by word of mouth external to Wikipedia. The handful of IP addresses I've left messages for have told me that they heard about this page from "a friend in the office", or "someone from school told me about it". Perhaps more compelling, is that if you search for "free reference desk", the RD comes up as one of the top pages...hmm... --HappyCamper 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper's]] comments

message: The recent improvement has had a bad side effect.  The instructions about how to ask a question now include:
*Edit your question for more discussion - click the UNIQ251fd3754e7daead-nowiki13a1fec655bdf86f00000001 link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. 
*Sign your question - type UNIQ251fd3754e7daead-nowiki13a1fec655bdf86f00000002 at its end. 
Cheers JackofOz 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the problem was the recently added , though I'm unsure how it caused the problem. Still, I've transcluded that template into the standard header, which causes the search box to appear on all Desks (if someone minds, it can be removed there), without the gobbledegook. -- Ec5618 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed the template too but couldn't see how it caused the problem, so I thought better refer it to someone who knows what they're doing.  Hey, transclude - what a great word!  Thanks. JackofOz 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to remove the template, transcluded or not, altogether. It seems we've found a bug. I've mentioned it on the Village pump, and cesarb has been kind enough to submit a bug report, Bug 4785. -- Ec5618 00:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, transclude is a great word. --cesarb 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gobbledegook in Instructions

message: I've created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Best of and tagged "Dinosaurs" and "Black light power, Nuclear fission or Nuclear fusion" with the new . enochlau (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also placed provisional instructions on Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. enochlau (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Apologies if this has been suggested before (I'm still fairly new to helping out at the Desk) but I notice a LOT of the queries on the science page and a number of those on the miscellaneous page are medical-related. Of the first 50 items on the Science desk at the moment, a full 30% are medical queries. Would a separate Wikipedia: Reference desk/Medical be worthwhile? Or would it only encourage people to ask here rather than doing the right thing and seeking professional medical help? Grutness...wha? 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion above concerning new categories. See #Vote for ref cats Medical wasn't among the proposed desks, and I tend to agree that it would create the impression we can authoritatively give medical advice. -- Ec5618 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a bad idea. No matter how much disclaiming we do we would still be perceived as having solicited medical questions for the purpose of providing medical advice (answers). hydnjo talk 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested split

message: The questions infra were inappropriately posed on the archive page.  I am moving them here.  I believe each has been asked elsewhere, though, so they needn't to be answered; I'm just putting them here in order that those who posed them will know where they are if they desire to ask again elsewhere. Joe 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions from project page

message: In the "House of Lords" page, in the first paragraph, there is this sabotage:
" The House you of are Lords going is to an strugggle unelected to body remove, consisting this of two"
:This was also posted on the relevant Ref desk page and was answered there. JackofOz 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Lords

message: Test case: go here and try to click the arrow in the first edit summary to see the section that was edited.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm you're right. Maybe we'll just have to settle for a template that goes underneath the title instead of in the title? enochlau (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently tried to make the image clickable, but it broke the header. If we move the template out of the header, we can make it clickable as well. -- Ec5618 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the "star" or whatever showed up in the TOC.  hydnjo talk 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. See if you like it. diff enochlau (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesssss! Thank you. That makes it easy to navigate to them and to ID those questions as soon as they're archived (dialogue is complete) for copying into "Best of".  hydnjo talk 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's not good enough. What shows up in the edit summary still contains the symbols . That means it's not a valid anchor, because those symbols don't show up in the section header itself. PLEASE no templates in section headers!!!! --Trovatore 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see where you're coming from, but it makes it rather difficult to find all the starred topics on the page because it doesn't show up on the TOC. How about including some text on the template to the right of the star, so that we can use a normal browser text search to find them? enochlau (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that putting  into the title line renders this  image but it doesn't show in the edit history. Hmmm.  hydnjo talk 02:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the templates in a sub-title for visibility in the TOC.  See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Shooting_a_gun_into_water. hydnjo talk 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Also please pull the notice in the header, people have already started using the template in the title.  hydnjo talk 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ** I've pulled the instructions diff. enochlau (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The subtitle isn't a bad idea, although it looks kind of clumsy in the TOC (on a separate line by itself), especially when we get to a point where many of the questions and response are tagged... enochlau (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem with it is that if editors use its edit link instead of the one for the main section header, you get non-clickable edit summaries again. I really think templates in headers are a bad idea, no matter what level of header. (Note BTW that Hydnjo's edit summary is not clickable.) --Trovatore 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check my edit summary for adding the template Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Dinosaurs.  hydnjo talk 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I must have missed something. Why are we ditching sub (third level) titles for the accumulation of stars using the template?  It doesn't break the edit history and is clickable and shows in the TOC.  hydnjo talk 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned above a) people may be tempted to click the edit next to the level 3 heading to make a response, whereupon the edit summary won't be clickable b) Having the asterisks on a second line in the TOC is ugly, especially when more questions than present are tagged. enochlau (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, got it.  hydnjo talk 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the title color for the next section as an experiment.  I'll change it back in a while. Just tossing stuff out to see if it triggers any ideas.  hydnjo talk 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't title colours suffer from the same problems as a template: that we don't have a clickable edit summary? enochlau (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary shows my font color edit and is clickable. No TOC visibility and doesn't look as nice as your template though.  hydnjo talk 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nope, not clickable from the edit summary in the history. Try it with my last edit to the sandbox section. enochlau (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quitting for tonight. I could have sworn that when I tried it on the another idea section it was clickable.  hydnjo talk 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it wouldn't hurt...how are we going to do this? --HappyCamper 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We really ought to use a bot. Any suggestions? Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:RD-best breaks edit summary links 

message: A place for experimenting with Best-of ideas...  hydnjo talk 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Best of sandbox section

message: I think something involved person attacks and was going to off topic,for those which should be deleted by Wikipedia. If not,I think those bad comments made by some people who often did,should be deleted or alted by a person who is just attacking. It is very fair,and I don't think it is not apprepriate at all.--HydrogenSu 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has made a personal attack directed at you, a good idea would be to first leave them a message on their talk page. If you don't get angry and simply explain that you "don't appreciate their harsh comments" and "hope for a peaceful discourse" then you may get a good response, even an apology. If the user continues, there are other methods of action that you can use, part of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes faction.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a relevant (disputed) guideline at Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exsitance about Isues of Altering Some Others' Comments 

message: Is it just me, or has Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics improved a lot? --HappyCamper 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions have. And there are more of them. Black Carrot 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics reference desk improving? 

message: A lot of kids post questions here and, granted, many may not even come back to see what we say. But if they do, and we've asked them to be more specific, how do they know what to do? Well, they have to know how to use Wikipedia. So, can we post information in the heading telling them what to do? OK, so 99% won't read it. Let's cater to the one who does. It could be something like this
:Follow-Up Questions: If you would like, or are asked, to follow up on your first question by providing more information, here's how: click on the <edit> button you see at the right of the screen next to you question, scroll to the bottom of the window that pops up, and write there.
This means that someone will have to modify WP:RD/H. A possible problem I can see is that vandals will deface the reference desk. But the vandals already know how to do that. --Halcatalyst 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean? The header for each reference desk is actually stored somewhere else. --HappyCamper 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facilitating follow-up on questions

message: hello...
i ran across your information site here, and i was wondering if there was any information you could give me on a poster i had found many years ago folded in the back of an old clock. it is a poster of a grand baseball match (its words not mine),between the diamond baseball club, and the concord baseball club of concord. on the concord grounds, at the rear of the fitchburg depot. it states that baseball not being "officially" an athletic sport is not announced by the executive committee. the time of the game is 8:30, and crossed out and penciled in at 9:00. apparently im not much of a researcher because i havent been able to find any information on it, although i did find another poster like it in the library of congress, they didnt really give any information about it. and denied my request for information. you can see their copy of the poster online in the library of congress, washington d.c. i was hoping you could tell me something about this day, and this game, i would be extrememly interested in anything you could tell me. thank you for considering my question.
meagain...Meagain46247 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding this to Reference Desk>Miscellaneous. Black Carrot 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th of July 1879 grand baseball match 

message: The flatulence "question" was asked by a vandal who has vandalized several other pages in the past hour. I think it can and should be deleted. -- Mwalcoff 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flatulence question 

message: It seems counterintuitive to me that when you click on one of the icons, it brings you to it's image page.  The way they are designed I think many people might expect they are are supposed to be clicked. Dforest 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with icons

message: Many of the responses to potentially controversial questions (such as those on homosexuality and morality) have been very emotionally loaded and highly pejorative, even critical of the patron asking the question.  This feels particularly unprofessional to me, and is doubtless not very helpful to those asking questions.  Even if a patron is upset or antagonistic, I think that it is important for those of us answering questions that we remain calm and civil, and refrain from assaulting points of view we may happen to disagree with.
While I have been impressed with some of the responses I've seen people offer here, other reactions have been appalling.  I'd like to remind people that The Reference desk is not a soapbox.  At a real reference desk, those with who feel a need to preach their POV would not last long.  The Jade Knight 09:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that timely reminder. Yes, the RD is not intended to be a soapbox. --HappyCamper 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtesy 

message: What happened to the link to the Ref Desk archive? Did it get lost in the latest remodelling of the Ref Desk page? I think it ought to be put back, but wanted to ask for opinions before editing such a highly visible page. What do you think? — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know...I've been out and about doing other great things for Wikipedia after Crypticbot freed me from archiving :-) Let's see if we can find out a little more... --HappyCamper 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref Desk Archive 

message: There have been several times when I've had Reference desk questions that I wanted to ask, but desperately didn't want to be traceable to me.  Is there any way for users to ask questions with strong anonymity (perhaps by creating a m:Role account, or by the addition of some software features)?  How would the regular Reference Desk editors feel about that capability?  In the best case, I'd want users to be able to create new page sections, but not do anything else, and for the IP addresses involved to be discarded immediately or within a few days.  I think it might make people a lot more comfortable in asking questions about drugs, sex, psychology, etc. -- Creidieki 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open a different web browser, create an account, and post from that.  We'll know it' you when someone anonymously asks embarassing questions.  But seriously, even if you got an anonymous wikipedia account, then there will be all sorts of people at your ISP and law enforcement who can read the comments you post, and associate them with you. Ojw 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If absolute privacy is important, you'd do better to simply not use your own computer and internet connection.  Perhaps you could go to the library or an internet cafe. ×Meegs 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking questions anonymously