Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Search

The InputBox extension has been updated to allow searches with a prefix. With prefix=Wikipedia:Help Desk, we can search the Help Desk and all of its subpages.

Do we want to add this in the header or elsewhere? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I say yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Can it go on the Help desk edit notice too, as a last minute encouragement to search? – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We've already had {{Google help desk}} in the header for some time, so this is a refinement rather than a new capability for us. I would be surprised to see a further reduction in redundant Help desk questions by replacing the existing link with a form, but it couldn't hurt to try. I wonder, though, why you limit the search box width to 22 characters. That seems unnecessarily small. I've done some Help desk searches by pasting a user's entire question into the Google custom search field, and often the results are useful.

I am more interested in seeing how the new InputBox feature might let us do some useful searches that {{Google custom}} cannot:

• Google does not index Wikipedia's (article) Talk: namespace, so we previously had no convenient way to search talk page archives for articles. Now we can, and it might be interesting to integrate such searches into the various archive templates.
• Google does not index pages that Wikipedia's robots.txt file tells search engines to exclude. One of the exclusions is quite irritating from the standpoint of the Help desk: the articles for deletion discussion pages. The rationale for excluding these pages is to prevent discussions about deleted articles from showing up at the top of general Google search results. I can understand why that would be a problem for someone who is searching for, say, a person's name, and has no direct interest in Wikipedia, but when we are trying to answer the usual "Why was my page deleted?" questions on the Help desk, we need a robust way to look up the relevant deletion discussion when the questioner provides the typically vague or misspelled description. That is, when we don't have the exact title.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The key is performance and utility: which search is better?
• The width is currently at default; it can be changed with the width parameter. This is only the display width- you can enter or paste wider text into the box (probably a limit of 255 characters).
• I had already considered that a search in an archive box would be useful.
• This would really be useful at WP:FAQ since the Google search is busted.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reminding me about the problem of Google not understanding Wikipedia's page moves. Google keeps believing the original page which has become a redirect is still the canonical copy of a page. That's the problem with the WP:FAQ search. Now we can fix that annoyance. I must go update my notes about unsolved search problems in light of these new search features.

The measure of "better" is how much further the repetitive questions on the Help desk will decline. I think we've already achieved the easy gains there. The remaining users who are too dense to notice the existing search link need a bigger clue bat. There is only one way to see if the new search provides the extra needed heft- try it. I suspect a small percentage of users are nearly blind to any instructions we can display, in part because the brain sees what it wants to see, once a person has already fixated on a course of action in an unfamiliar environment. (I've had more than a few of those sorts of lapses.) We've tried shrinking and growing the instructions before. There's no harm in continuing to fiddle with them. Eventually we will find the sweet spot.

I like to see the whole search string in the search box because that makes the search much easier to modify during iterative search, and to be sure that one has pasted text correctly without having unseen stray text off to the side. Horizontal scrolling is one of least desirable interface features, although its worst effects occur in multi-line text which we don't have in a search box. --Teratornis (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So much for cut & paste— I did have the width set to 22; now the example is at default. I don't know what the search limit is, but it accepts a string of 2000 characters. Fiddling around, I found that this search does not work on User Talk pages— it is broken if the namespace has a space; this has already been reported and fixed but not yet updated. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most noticeboards use the internal search in the form of an imputbox by now. It's more engaging for the reader than a link to google and quality of searching is similar for most uses, with the non-negligible advantage of section links. So I'd support to use it. Cenarium (Talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is terrible to post questions.

I think it is too hard to post a question on the Help desk. There are three hurdles:

1. The ugly/hard to understand Initial page
2. You click on the button and land at the Second page
3. Then you get to the edit box, with more stuff.

I think this is ridiculously over complicated, it should be as simple as possible to post a question. It would be fine by me to remove numbers (2) and (3) completely, I can live with the Initial page. The only drawback will be more questions, but surely we have plenty of volunteers to sign posts and give a friendly point to the Reference desk etc?

Is it ok for anyone, or me, to drastically simplify the posting system?--Commander Keane (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been in the back of my mind as well. The header suffers greatly from instruction creep and is going to be ignored by most novices. Any user who simply adds a comment to the the page will bypass Wikipedia:Help_desk/Instructions. I think that a simplified header and the editnotice should be sufficient. Let's discuss this and make some suggestions first. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say that the second page is very off-putting indeed. People shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to ask for help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)The "second page" in the wizard looks redundant to me. It has a little useful stuff such as links to AIV and Ref desk but that could be merged to the first page itself -maybe. –Capricorn42 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree we can remove the second page. The editnotice would be ok though. Any necessary information from the 2nd can be included in the initial page or editnotice. I have posted questions here a few times, and this did strike me as a bit too complicated. In addition to that, it might give the questioner the impression that "we think you are stupid. since we don't trust your ability to do the right thing, we will make sure you do". And anyway, nobody really reads such a load of information, right? The help desk (where we are supposed to help people), should be inviting and not discouraging poeple from coming to us. Chamal ^talk 14:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We can still keep detailed instructions and such in a collapsed box using {{FAQ}}. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for an example. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout proposal

Here is an idea for some changes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I liek the idea, but I think a couple of changes could be made: we might want to make the "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia." bit red, and the "Click here to start a new question about using Wikipedia" should really say "Click here to ask a new question about using Wikipedia". Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked. How now? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it. Support replacing the current "wizard" with this simpler layout. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, me too. I think it looks fine. But shouldn't we include a link to the IRC channel too? Chamal ^talk 13:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better visually. Doesn't scream "You probably shouldn't be bothering us here - your question has been answered somewhere else" like the current page does. Much more consistent with other wiki formatting. I can't speak about the bot, I haven't started learning how to write bots yet. IMHO Ched (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add IRC and other content that to the FAQ section, which does not exist yet. {{FAQ}} transcludes the content from a /FAQ subpage. In my humble opinion, those who wander here to ask questions are probably not IRC savvy. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I really like the layout proposal (but I did prefer it without the red text). Are we keeping {{WP help pages (header bar)}}? If so the duplicated links in the proposed sidebar could be omitted. Also, it could be useful to have links to Volunteer instructions and Special help services in the sidebar. For the FAQ, I like the layout but not the link to the encyclopedia article "FAQ". I think just a link to Wikipedia:FAQ with no expandable list would be ok.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to removing instructions on how to look up answers to repetitive questions. Many Wikipedia users have spent many hours building the tools that enable users to look up answers to their own questions, and this is critical to Wikipedia's efficiency. We need every user to learn to pull as much of their own weight as they can. There are 47,326,797 registered accounts, but only a few dozen people available to answer questions. Adding those instructions on how to look up answers reduced some of the wasteful repetition on the Help desk. If the Help desk turns into a massively repetitive babysitting service, volunteers will probably get bored and leave. (How many times does anyone want to explain how to create a new article? That's no fun. What's fun is to design a system that enables new users to answer that question themselves. This is actually more welcoming because new users feel empowered when they figure something out without having to ask a human. Having to ask a human for assistance is intrinsically degrading. It is not degrading to ask a computer because nobody cares what the computer thinks about them. Think about the countless numbers of people we have probably spared the humiliation of having to ask questions they suspect are probably dumb questions, because we gave them the means to find their own answers.) We do want to scream at people to RTFM. We do want to teach people that virtually every problem or question they might have has come up before, and it's all in writing and searchable - whenever someone goes exploring, it makes a big difference if they really are the first person to do some particular thing. If some territory has been fully mapped, it's foolish to blunder in without first checking to see what others have written about it. Wikipedia is a do it yourself system. Wikipedia only works for people who are comfortable reading lots of manuals, and who expect to look things up themselves. If people don't want to read instructions, they will not enjoy Wikipedia, and they will make Wikipedia less enjoyable for every user they come in contact with. Their editing will be one disaster after another. They will either learn to read instructions, or they will become frustrated and leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles by misguided new users because we pretend to be more welcoming than we actually are. When someone is strolling into a minefield, they don't need false assurances, they need accurate information about the fact that they are walking into a minefield, and they need to know where the mines are. People who are new to Wikipedia need the truth: Wikipedia is complex, but if you are smart and you read manuals and you are comfortable looking things up yourself, you can learn enough to enjoy yourself here. We do a disservice to people if we pretend Wikipedia is simple. Wikipedia makes it pretty simple to correct typos, but beyond that things tend to get complicated fast.

WP:CREEP is possibly the most misinformed guideline on Wikipedia. It's based on the experiences of traditional organizations that use largely illiterate communication methods (i.e., face-to-face spoken communication) and thus become subject to Brooks' law. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. On Wikipedia we write everything down. We codify every procedure. As Wikipedia grows, we codify more and more procedures. This "instruction creep" is not harmful, it's what makes Wikipedia not suck. Traditional organizations suck because their procedures grow too, but nobody writes them down. Instead, their instruction creep occurs in people's minds, and they must relay it by speaking, with the inevitable random errors and productivity loss with each spoken repetition. Since so much information critical to the traditional organization exists only in certain people's heads, the inner workings are mysterious and impenetrable to the newcomer, the only way in is to receive detailed mentoring from someone with inside knowledge - and that always comes at some sort of price. That organizational model cannot work for remote collaboration. When people work remotely, they cannot gesture and grunt like primates; instead, they must take a completely literal approach to communication. Wikipedia does, and that's how Wikipedia avoids sucking. There are no secret rules. Everything is transparent. Anyone can get as far with Wikipedia as they are willing to read. The result is that Wikipedia is a paradise for people who have the ability to self-educate. Such people are probably a minority of the general population, but we cannot do anything about that. At the moment we lack the technology to build a system usable by people who cannot or will not self-educate. Wikipedia is not that system, and we don't help anyone by pretending otherwise. Maybe when computers can pass the Turing test, Wikipedia can become usable by people who are less literate and less analytical, but that's probably decades away. --Teratornis (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an enhancement to the proposal or a counter proposal? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, the proposed layout is better than the current one both in tone and readability. Specifically, I agree with Densock about using "Click here to ask a new question about using Wikipedia" rather than the proposed text. I would suggest moving the FAQ link earlier in the notice, after "For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk." and rewording it to say: "Your question may have already been answered: Click here to view the FAQ." If the FAQ link is moved earlier, then the "ask a new question" link should say: "If you can't find the answer to your question in the FAQ, click here to ask a new question." --Thomprod (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some tweaking. Please review and comment. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Placement is better, but I still prefer my wording proposed on 14 January: The phrases "Your question may have already been answered..." and "If you can't find the answer to your question in the FAQ..." help encourage people to actually read the FAQ before asking a new question. These have been used with good success on other websites that use FAQs. --Thomprod (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you want those, so please add them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I added my text to the final line. What do you think? --Thomprod (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Issue There is a problem with {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. It keeps a border & text centered for this entire conversation. I couldn't figure out the issue. hmwithτ 22:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Layout proposal 2

Skip to today's questions Skip to the bottom Special help services Archived discussions

|} I really liked the original design, I have modified it and suggest it as layout proposal 2. It is compact and highlights a link to the official FAQ in colour and with an icon.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FAQ template

• I have been fiddling with {{FAQ}} and have decided that I don't like it. It is OK for a simple FAQ where everything is hidden, but does not work well if you want collapsed groups. If the TOC is hidden, then it gets ignored. See Talk:Order of the Arrow for an example. I need to work on the icon size and text alignment a bit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• A bit more on this template. FAQ transcludes a subpage named /FAQ. It can be collapesed or uncollapsed. When collapesd, only the title shows: see Talk:Muhammad for an example. When uncollapsed, the entire FAQ page shows. In my experience, if the questions don't show, then the user will not bother to open the FAQ and read the answers. If FAQ is uncollapsed, you get a long of questions. Using the collapsed list in proposal 1 is a balance between the two.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I know the header design is still being proposed, but are there any ideas for the notice at the top of the edit page, MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk and Wikipedia:Help Desk/editintro? For MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk I suggest removing the red bar and consolidating the first and third points. For Wikipedia:Help Desk/editintro I suggest removing the bold intro (this info in already in MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk) and keeping the rest of the points except the email point (this info in already in MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk). Rereading my intial post I can see how it may have seemed extreme in the way questions should be encouraged, but there is plenty of discussion here and I think a good compromise can be found for answerers and askers. --Commander Keane (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least quickly get rid of that dreadful second page? DuncanHill (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the instructions page, then I propose to fold it into the FAQ section. I also suggest we merge the editintro into the editnotice (when I proposed the editnotice a while back, I had never clicked on the link, thus I did not know the editintro existed). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the second page was not going to be used anymore, as neither of the current layout proposals use it. The advantage of the editintro is that it can have specific points relating to starting a new thread (eg fill in the subject heading), but merging editintro into the editnotice is fine by me.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I mean the "Instructions". I always use "new section" and ignore the excessively long intros on pages like the help desk and other such, so hadn't encountered it until this thread, but I must say that as a welcome to new or confused editors it stinks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a by-the-way, this article, Information seeking was mentioned in a recent discussion about instructions in another part of the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Layout Proposal 2, but I think the link to the FAQ should go above (before) the option to ask a new question, not below (after) as currently proposed. --Thomprod (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current header stuff

It is probably useful to understand what is where in the current header stuff:

• The HD page uses {{WP help pages (header bar)}} and {{Wikipedia:Help desk/Header}}
• When you click on "click here to ask your question", you go to Wikipedia:Help desk/Instructions
• When you again click on "click here to ask your question", you get {{Wikipedia:Help Desk/editintro}} and MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the current proposal with the FAQ move by User:Commander Keane. --Thomprod (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had a go at simplifing {{Wikipedia:Help Desk/editintro}} and MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk. Discussion on the new header seems to have stalled. What is the consensus towards the layout proposals?--Commander Keane (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in the flow of instructions do we tell the user to search the Help desk archives? What was the reasoning for removing it? Did anyone produce any actual data that showed the Help desk was somehow less effective with that instruction up there, or is this all some sort of uninformed guess about user experience? Did any users complain about having that instruction? Searching the Help desk archives is productive on a very large fraction of questions that appear on the Help desk. It should be the first instruction a questioner sees. If they learn how to search the Help desk archives, then we have given them a fishing pole, not just a fish, enabling them to answer their next N questions on their own. An archive search link is much easier for the user than asking them to slog through some hierarchical FAQ structure. Even I can't find what I'm looking for in the FAQ half the time because the division of questions often makes no sense to me. It would be better to have all the FAQ entries on one huge page so I could Ctrl-F search it in my browser. But that's a different issue. (There is a reason why Google search became more popular than Yahoo's attempt to organize the Web into a hierarchy - namely, search is generally more effective than hierarchical drill-down, especially for people who don't know the hierarchy.) --Teratornis (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think a link to Google help desk search is useful suggest a sutiable place to put it. Personally I think a link in the intro at Wikipedia:FAQ would be the best place (I'll do that now), given Google's poor search result summaries and the fact you have use Ctrl-F to actually skip to the part of the page you need. Wikipedia:FAQ has an internal search now.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Help desk on Wikimedia Commons

It's interesting to get some perspective by examining the Help desk on Wikimedia Commons. The Commons Help desk has less instruction for the new user to wade through. See if you like the results. Lots of users ask inappropriate questions, or questions that don't make sense; many questions go unanswered; it seems a lower percentage of questioners sign their questions; etc. We get some of that on the Wikipedia Help desk, of course, but it seems we get generally better questions. My overall impression of the Commons Help desk is that it isn't as well-developed as the Wikipedia Help desk. Part of that is due to Commons having a smaller user community, and thus a smaller pool of volunteers to work on the Help desk. But I think the less regimented approach makes the Commons Help desk messier, and thus less welcoming to the experienced users who could answer questions. By the way, that's a key point when considering design changes to the Help desk - we are not just appealing to the clientele, but also to the help. The Help desk only works if it provides interesting, meaningful challenges to the volunteers who answer questions. Since we don't pay the volunteers to answer questions, we have to make the Help desk fun for them. This is actually a higher priority than babysitting everyone who doesn't want to read the friendly manuals. When I look at the Commons Help desk, I feel a little less motivated to answer questions there than when I look at the Wikipedia Help desk. Judging from the number of unanswered questions, I'm possibly not the only person who gets the same impression. --Teratornis (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding a search the archives link to the header

Any thoughts on adding a search the archives link like they have at WP:AN and the reference desk? Something like:

Thousands of answered questions are in the help desk archives. Search below to see if your question has been asked before, e.g., How do I rename an article? or How do I create a page?

The suggested searches in the text above the search field are both very effective when tried. I am not good enough with the graphical elements to make it fit aesthetically with the current header. If we were to implement this, we can just tweak the new question link to "If you can't find the answer in the archives or the FAQ, click here to ask a new question"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt, but I doubt it will be used much - from the number of repeat questions we see on the Help Desk, I don't think anyone coming to the HD for help actually reads any of the stuff in the header, it's just easier to post a question than read through the existing materials. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we did see a significant reduction in RD questions after we emphasized that the page was only for questions about using Wikipedia. I'm not sure the current changed header is as effective at this, but it did show that some not insignificant percentage were reading. It's always difficult to find evidence supporting negative implications.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See #Search above. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arggg. Okay, disregard:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would never have happened with a search bar. :P  GARDEN  18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean disregard, just that we already discussed this and it went stale. I still think that a clear archive search would be useful. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose adding the archive search to the header, mainly due to bloating. The link to the FAQ is prominent and the FAQ page has a search bar at the top, FAQ answers should be canonical whereas the archives are sometimes incomplete/incorrect (eg the first part of the first result for "How do I rename an article?" erroneously links to instructions to changing your username). Perhaps instead, a link to a page dedicated to finding answers, eg Wikipedia:Help desk/Other ways to find answers?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking these points individually:

• "Bloating" - this is a pejorative label; what meaning does it add? "Bloat" by itself is neither good nor bad. People come to Wikipedia in large numbers because Wikipedia has lots of features. The "bloat" argument applies to removing any instruction from the Help desk, including the page title, the interlanguage links, the Wikipedia logo, etc. We could remove all the "bloat" and just show the user a blank form. An actual argument might show, if possible, how adding such a search link could not possibly justify its slight contribution to the existing bloat of all the other features on the Help desk page. According to How to Ask Questions the Smart Way, Before You Ask, the first thing the help-seeker should do is to search the archive of the list or forum on which he or she is about to pose a question. This is probably the most important instruction we can give to the user, for these reasons:
  • Most Help desk questions are repetitive to some degree. If users can find their own answers, they will reduce the repetition on the Help desk. This will also reduce the repetitiveness of the answers, which as you have noted elsewhere can be bothersome to other Help desk volunteers. Help desk volunteers do not want to keep reading the same questions and answers over and over again. People will eventually get bored and leave. We are always trying to abstract out repetition (for example, with FAQs and standard response templates) for this reason.
  • A user must find answers to many questions on the way to learning Wikipedia. If the Help desk can teach a user how to look up his or her own answers, that is even more valuable than merely answering the current question. As the saying goes, don't just give someone a fish, teach them how to fish. The user will be hungry again tomorrow, and will have another question. What user skill can be more important on Wikipedia, or any other open source project, than learning how to look up answers?
• FAQ answers are canonical; this is good for teaching readers to use our canonical terms, but not so good for searching. Few users arrive at the Help desk knowing our canonical language. Archived Help desk archive questions are therefore easier for users to find, because they represent a wide range of possible wordings of particular concepts. For example, how many different ways do users say "How do I create a new article?" They have several synonyms for "create" ("add", "upload", "make", "start", "open", "load", etc.) and "article" ("page", "entry", "profile", "document", "file", "item", "listing", etc.). The archives contain the actual wording of real users when they first come to Wikipedia. We will never put all those non-canonical synonyms in every FAQ entry, so the FAQ will remain harder for new users to search until they learn our canonical terms.
• FAQ answers require someone to manually update them, but the Help desk archives update as soon as the servers process a new question. The archives may have information about recent problems that aren't in the FAQ yet, or might never be in the FAQ. The archive builds itself up for free, without requiring extra editing, or arguing about what should be in it. Thus the FAQ will never be as complete or current as the Help desk archive.
• By definition the FAQ is for frequently asked questions. A large fraction of questions are not frequently asked. A question only has to appear once, and then it becomes findable in the archive.
• I suspect, but lack the data to prove, that displaying an archive search form at the top of the Help desk instructions will invite more use than merely providing a link to the FAQ page. Almost anyone with much experience on computers should be familiar with a search form, and thus the form should visually stand out from the rest of the text links. I think a search form is harder to miss than any instruction we currently have.
• You raise a good point about errors in the archive. However, I believe the vast majority of outright errors in Help desk answers get corrected by other Help desk volunteers on the spot. A possibly greater danger is that as the archives age, information that was initially correct may become outdated and possibly wrong. However, the FAQ has a similar danger. There is always some chance that a user will get a wrong answer. Fortunately, Wikipedia is robust against errors. As long as the user can eventually recognize an error and someone can correct any damage, Wikipedia should survive. I think the vastly greater store of useful information in the Help desk archives outweighs the downside of possibly incorrect information.
  • The archives remain editable. Anyone is allowed to add a new response to an archived question to correct or update the old answers.
• I had started a subpage: Wikipedia:Help desk/How to ask but I didn't get very far with it. Basically, I would like to adapt How to Ask Questions the Smart Way to Wikipedia, remove the scolding tone, and put in information about all our search methods. This would also give us a compact way to enlighten users who ask purposely vague questions, about the counterproductive nature of deliberately withholding details from the people who are trying to help them.
  • By the way, what happened to the link we had to Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer? Someone removed it from Wikipedia:Help desk/Header. How are new Help desk volunteers supposed to learn how to answer questions now?

--Teratornis (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What about changing the current link of Archived discussions to Archived discussions (searchable)? I have added the search box to the archives page. The Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer link did drop off, there is a link at the top of this talk page though. --Commander Keane (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving and unanswered questions

How often is this project page archived - every day? This frequency can be mentioned in the page. Also, what happens to unanswered questions, do they go into a separate page for unanswered questions, like how the reference desk has? Can the OP re-post the answered question fresh after it has been archived? Jay (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Addressing questions in order:

1. I don't know, but we can search the Help desk history with Ctrl-F for "archive". That finds some archiving activity by Scsbot. If that isn't informative enough, I think there has been some relevant discussion in the archives of this page.
   • Good luck with getting more information added to the Help desk page. The Help desk instructions have cycled up and down in size several times since I have been active on the Help desk. There is no durable consensus as to just how many instructions are ideal. The latest trend is in the direction of dumbing it back down. Come back in six months and maybe the instructions will be bloating back up again. Maybe this information could go on Wikipedia:Help desk/How to ask, a page we might link to someday if we ever finish a first draft. (Anyone can help. I promise I will eventually get serious about editing that page, perhaps after I finish my first draft of the Editor's index to Commons, my current distraction.) Or maybe the Help desk needs its own "About" page, which could document the technical details of how things work. That might be useful for other projects such as Commons, which have Help desks with fewer features, if their users want to port some of our Help desk features to their projects.
2. The Help desk has very few unanswered questions. Even questions which do not admit any answers, because of their vagueness or incoherency, almost always at least get a minimal response, such as an {{astray}} template. I would be surprised if we have enough unanswered questions to justify a separate page, but I haven't actually counted. I can report that I look at the Help desk almost every day, and if I see an unanswered question I will usually try to answer it, no matter how difficult it is, or how stupid I end up sounding. But I don't see many. Most of my answers add on to other answers. The Help desk has an amazingly dedicated and skilled group of volunteers.
3. Yes, an original poster can repeat a question as often as he or she wants. I don't know how we could prevent this even if we wanted to. There's nothing in the MediaWiki software to stop it, short of blocking a user, I think.

--Teratornis (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Unanswered questions. I agree all questions are answered, but only the original posts. I guess follow ups get missed out based on which date section the original post belonged to. If I add a follow up question to a post of a week back, I'm sure most would not notice. The specific post which prompted me to ask was this which went unanswered. Probably it makes sense to have an unanswered archive if there are several instances like this. Jay (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered 2 templates that solves the unanswered questions problem! {{unanswered}} and {{unresolved}}. I guess these templates can be added on top of any ananswered questions before being archived, though I doubt if a bot can do this. By the way, the topic of unanswering was another unresolved post in another talk page. Jay (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

About the archiving: I've asked the operator of the archive bot (Scsbot, like Teratornis said), and found out that Scsbot is a manually-operated AWB bot, which is supposed to run every day (archiving I think the last of the three days which should be on the help desk by then). However, since it is manual, some days are missed, and the timing is sort of erratic. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Maybe if there was an About page like Teratornis suggested, this information could go in it. Jay (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up the archiving question again. Is it possible to not move unanswered questions to the archive? My post of April 30 went unanswered. Althought I figured out it'll fit in the village pump and posted it there. Jay (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New template to help new users

I suspect the first part of the following is a template because I see it so often on the Help Desk. The second part was written by a separate editor and probably is not a template.

I would like to propose the following text be used for the question "How do I create an article?"

Please see Your first article.

1. Ensure that you have an account and you are logged in. If you don't have an account, create one
2. Make sure the subject is notable enough to have their own article
3. Find references
4. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box to the left (←) and clicking 'Search'
5. Type the page name in the search box to the left (←) and click 'Go'
6. Click 'Create this page'
7. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines
8. Be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are at extra risk of deletion, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones.

If you are sure you should create your article after reading all of the above, then go ahead. If you are unsure, then, after creating an account, you can then create a sub-page in user space. For example, if your user name is Foobar987, your user page will be User:Foobar987. If your new article is to be named "Blatification" then you can initially create it at User:Foobar987/Blatification. After you create the article and get it up to a standard you are happy with, come back here and ask for someone to review your article. We will then help you to make sure your article is OK according to our strange and wonderous rules. We may even help fix the article or help you to find someone to assist you. Once the article is good enough, you can move the article to "mainspace:" that is, use the "move" feature to change the name of the article from User:Foobar987/Blatification to just Blatification. This approach works because by convention a subpage of your user page is not required to follow all of the rules of a mainspace article. (Note, however, it must still adhere to some fundamentals such as no copyright violations and no personal attacks.) Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the first part is {{HD/new}}. The second part is from Wikipedia:Your first article (or adapted from it). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So how do we make the whole thing a template? It just seems more welcoming, if someone's willing to do it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first step would be to pop it onto your user area, and give it a test. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I created {{HD/new}}, and wouldn't be at all opposed to modifying that, but the text you suggest seems a bit long and slightly informal (e.g. "strange and wonderous [sic] rules"). The length isn't really an issue, but can we please professionalise it a bit? We are an encyclopedia, after all, and calling out rules "strange and wonderous" [sic] isn't going to help users to respect them. Does Britannica tell its writers that their rules are weird? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How do people feel about {{HD/new}} as opposed to {{creation}}? Algebraist 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just link to Your first article, leave it at that, and concentrate on making YFA concise but comprehensive? YFA also has links to WP:AFC and WP:DRAW.

On a related topic, what would really be nice is that when we encourage people to create a sub-page in their uspace, rather than the cumbersome descriptions of how to do it, we create a clickable link that asks them for the name and initial content, creates the page and opens an edit window for it (or just edits with &redlink=1). The problem there is getting the current value for the user magicword so that it targets their own uspace. Franamax (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Font size

I have accidentally hit a combination of keys on my keyboard today, and the font size of pages in Wiki has nearly doubled (not on any other web pages, just wiki). I would like to return to 12px but I don't know how to get it back. Can anyone please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.59.107 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is the "talk page" for the Help Desk, where users can discuss changes to the Help Desk. Please post any other questions you have on that page. Now, on to the answer: go into your browser's settings for zoom. In Firefox, press Ctrl and 0 (zero) to return font size to normal. In Internet Explorer, go to Page -> Zoom and Page -> Font Size. Make sure the former is set to 100% and the latter to Medium. Xenon54 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating Interwiki

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please update the interwiki for Persian langugae (فارسی) from [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز راهنما]] to [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز کمک]]? (The current destination is a redirection page to the newly suggested one). If you want to keep the zwnj character in symbolic way, it would go here [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میز کمک]]. Thanks a lot Alifakoor (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Alifakoor (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to add another political Organization

I like to add that theres another political organization. It's called USWGO. if anybody is willing to make the article then I like for somebody to add another political organization to the list.

I am the source for it and if you find the website thats another source.

If you want me to post the website and if it's fine by moderators I'll post it.

This is the talk page of the help desk. Its purpose is to discuss the help desk. You should post this to the help desk itself. Algebraist 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SineBot?

I feel like SineBot has stopped signing unsigned posts on this page. Has anyone else noticed this as well? As of this post, the last few questions were unsigned and no {{unsigned}} was automatically added. TNXMan 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As of the time of your post, the last two questions were signed by the OP and the two before that by SineBot. All seems well. Algebraist 11:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SineBot made no edits for 17 hours [2] but it's back now. See User talk:slakr#Sinebot_2. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what it was. Thanks for the heads up! TNXMan 13:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

May 16, 2007, archive problem

The list of May 2007 dates is missing the 16th.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.[3] It had a wrong heading and link. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a talkboard

I'm a bit concerned by the way the help desk seems to be descending into a political talk board. If someone wants a political debate, the answer should be to point out this is not a talk board and ask if they have a question related to the actual editing of wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the same concern since the recent Barack Obama issue. However, things seem to have died down today and will probably continue to do so. I've been ignoring any posts accusing us of ZOMGconspiracy, as most trolls will just get bored and move on. TNXMan 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please delete duplicate file

This orphaned file: [File:2004-07-06 Nagarjuna.JPG] should be deleted as it has been replaced by another image from the same photo taken by myself - [File:Nagarjuna.JPG]. I am sorry, I don't know how to do this. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. For future reference, to request speedy deletion you can tag an image such as this with {{db-g7}}. By the way, we link files by doubled brackets and for things such as categories and images, if you want to display the link (rather than the image itself or place the page in the category), you simply place a colon before it. Thus, [[:File:Nagarjuna.JPG]] produces File:Nagarjuna.JPG. Finally, please note that this is not the actual help desk; this is its talk page, used for discussing the help desk. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Where do I go to make my own userboxes? User:Sammy on Skids has some and I found the site, but for the life of me I can't find it now!!!!!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the Help desk talk page (where we discuss how to improve the help desk). The actual desk is at WP:HD. The information you're looking for is at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stars on yahoo answers

I don't know who to contact about the stars on yahoo answers. How do people get their stars. I only have 4 I believe this is a mistake. Will someone please tell me on what grounds do people recieves these stars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.134.179 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask at Yahoo! answers. This page is for discussing improvements to the Help desk of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved tags and Additional entries

I have created two templates for help desk talkbacks: {{helpdeskreply|1=SECTION|2=~~~~}} & {{helpdeskadd|1=SECTION|2=~~~~}}. The first one displays:

	Hello Help desk. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! ZooFari 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

The second one displays:

	Hello Help desk. Additional entries have been made at the Help desk. The Resolved tag was added prior to the additional input. ZooFari 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskadd}} template.

I strongly encourage not to remove the resolved tag, but use the second template instead. I see that many of you remove it to add more entries. Removing it does not help, and the tag will help to ensure the asker gets the responses. If the resolved tag is added and want to make additional entries, use ''Additional entries'' (in bold) for ease access and maintanance. Please make any suggestions about the tag. Once confirmed, I will add them to "How to answer". ZooFari 18:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

These should use the {{tmbox}} meta-template. --Gadget850 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are notice banners used to for talk pages at the top. Was that what you ment? ZooFari 00:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooops- I meant {{ombox}}. These templates have a section header; the edit link is transcluded, but links back to the template. Thus, anyone who attempts to reply may end up editing the template by mistake. --Gadget850 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section headings due to chaos that was happening earlier. For now, the heading will be manually written while it gets implemented in the meantime. ZooFari 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be useful. I find the boxes to be intrusive however, I think it would be better if they matched the regular talkback box, ie, smaller icon & no empty line, mind if I change that ? Equendil Talk 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the first one would be useful, I don't see any need for the second. What's the point of telling the questioner that something has been added after a resolved tag put there? The resolved tag does not mean that the perfect answer to a question has been given, it merely shows that a solution to the problem has been given. There may be other answers in addition to this and another user can remove a resolved tag if he thinks it is necessary in order to provide a more detailed answer or if he thinks there are problems with the given answer. The resolved tag does not give the answerer credit for solving a problem or anything like that, so I see no reason for not removing it where necessary or adding more information even if it is there. Chamal ^talk 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the addition template because some answerers have a problem with the resolved tag being placed before their input. The user is the one who places the tag, and it is more than likely that the user will not look back to see if anything was added. Yes, we can just add the first one, but I think it would look awkward for the user if someone would make place the first template after the user has placed a resolved tag. It would be like ("Hey, I marked resolved. My problem is fixed. Why am I getting this?"). This is just my opinion, but it isn't a requirement to place the second template if you don't want to. ZooFari 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, adding a line saying "Additional entries" will make it look like the original answers are the perfect ones and the stuff added after that are just kind of polishing up of those, or just rag tag answers. But the one added later may in fact be the better answer. If the questioner marks it as resolved (which rarely happens even if we ask them to) or if one of us marks it based on questioners input (a simple thank you or saying it works), there may still be vital information that needs to be added. This should be added as usual and not in a separate sub-section because of the reasons I mentioned. I think we should use one simple template to inform the questioners of replies to their questions. Or even if we do use two templates, we shouldn't categorize answers as before and after. Well, that's my opinion anyway, and I'm not stuck to it. If you guys can convince me, I'm ready to change it :) Chamal ^talk 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. We can just use the first one. If entries are made after, then it probably wouldn't hurt placing the first template again. ZooFari 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you guys want. But don't get me wrong; as i said before, my only problem is with categorizing answers as before and after. There's no problem in using one saying that additional entries were made as long as this problem is not there. But don't any others have a view on this? I have a feeling most people here won't be using these templates anyway (I wouldn't in most cases; I prefer to send them a normal message if needed). But no harm in leaving them there for those who will use them. Chamal ^talk 12:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

←First, I do thank ZooFari for the work and effort that went into making these tb templates. It shows enthusiasm, and a spirit to help that this help desk is all about. For those of you that are regulars here, there's no real need to drop these on my talk page though. I check in here pretty often, and always go back to look at any threads I'm interested in. Not that'll I'll ever get upset if someone does drop me one, I'm just saying that there's no real need. Thanks, and Best — Ched :  ?  14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Needless bureaucracy

I received this polite notice at my talk page regarding the parsing question. I find no fault with the person who posted it to my talk page. I do find fault with the needless bureaucracy that this entails. At WP:AN/I and other places, there are automatic archiving bots that handle the work of archiving threads that have grown stale. I see no reason why this can not be done here.

The more hoops a person has to jump through to accomplish things, the less we'll accomplish. I note there's no instructions at the top of this page that original posters must place {{resolved}} on questions that have been satisfactorily answered. I'm sure there will be soon.

Why do we have to have {{helpdeskreply}}? A person who posted a question most certainly will follow along to see if the question is answered, or continue to contribute to the discussion of the question if it is not. We don't need a notice to remind us of this. This is babysitting, handholding, and completely unnecessary.

I'm considering placing this template for deletion as needless. It was only recently created and as yet has been used less than 50 times. Better to nip it in the bud now before it gets out of control.

Some of you may find this to be interesting reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that your argument is not based on how the help desk works. If a question is not marked as resolved, others will read the question and attempt to answer it. If it is marked as resolved, the question will be skipped. It appears that you are advocating having every user who checks the help desk waste time by reading questions and answering them after the questioner is completely satisfied with the replies given. What are you saving? Just one user adding a one-word template to the question. I have no idea how you rationalize that to be a bureaucracy. Your argument is actually against what you ask. You claim that use of the resolved template keeps us from getting things done when the lack of marking questions as resolved makes responders waste time needlessly answering questions. -- kainaw™ 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's absolutely astonishing that various other noticeboards get by just fine without having to have original posters mark things as resolved. Explain why this board requires these templates to be added by the OPs when other boards do not? What makes this board so unique that it must have this added bureaucracy? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it." --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested that anybody was required to do anything. Let's just appreciate the effort and move on. — Ched :  ?  14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ched. It's like the {{talkback}} template. Some people use it, some don't, some just leave a normal message. There are no specifications for adding the resolved tag either. The asker may add it if he has got the answer to his question, or someone else can do it if the matter appears to be resolved. There is no requirement that every discussion must be tagged as resolved. This was done in good faith and it doesn't break anything here, so let's not get too excited about something trivial. Chamal ^talk 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't trivial. It's instruction creep. It's unnecessary. A bot can handle it just as well, requiring no human intervention. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate the effort. Yesterday, I read the response to my question and used it in a follow up post elsewhere. I didn't feel the need to return to the help desk, as my question had been answered. Then today, I receive notice of a new message on my talk page. One click. Then, I spend time reading the templated notice encouraging me to take action. Some time spent. Even if I just complied with the request, I'd need to copy the requested code for the template application, copy it, then click on the link in the template, then click on edit, then a few more keystrokes to add the resolved tag, then another click to save the page. Minutes of my time taken when the matter was already resolved in my mind, and a bot could just as easily archive the question as being stale. The time I would have spent could just as well be spent on something productive in the project. I ask again, WHY is this necessary? How is this board unique that it asks for this type of bureaucracy when no other board does? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... I think you've got mixed up here. There's nothing here about archiving. It's only about placing the {{resolved}} tag on top of the discussion to indicate that a problem was solved. It has nothing to do with the archiving here, and archiving on the help desk continues as usual by a bot. You are not required to archive discussions. You're not required to even place the resolved tag. You can leave it as it is if you don't want to. It won't hurt anybody, and as you probably know, nobody is required to do anything here on Wikipedia. Chamal ^talk 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Adding the template to people's talk pages creates the air of expectation that this needs to be done. I refuse, and so should anybody else. There's no point to the template. If you're saying it saves time of people reading questions and responses, it doesn't. People doing so may come forward with additional useful information. If you're saying it saves time of the original posters, it's doesn't. It encourages the expenditure of time. If you're saying it has nothing to do with archiving, then it's of no use to that process. So why even bother having it? At the expense of making people feel compelled to place the template, someone's going around adding it to every poster's talk page and every poster is being encouraged to spend more time. For what benefit?
• Look, it's all well and good to come up with processes that solve extant problems where there is a clear need for a solution. Alternatively, if the new process highlights a problem that other people had difficulty scoping but the solution does and fixes nicely, then it is probably good. In this case, these do not apply. What problem does this bureaucracy solve? Nothing. This board worked perfectly fine for five years before the creation of this new template encouraging people to do things that aren't required. Why is this needed now? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you sanely claim that the resolved tag does not save time by allowing responders to avoid reading and commenting on resolved questions? It takes time to read a question. It takes time to read the current responses. It takes time to reply. Compare that to: One click from the template on your talk page to the question. One click on the edit button. Pasting (or typing) the few characters {{resolved}}. Clicking save. You are attempting to rationalize that it would take you days and days to add a resolved tag to your question. It simply makes your argument sound very childish. -- kainaw™ 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for making an assertion that I'm insane and my assertions childish. When you have an opportunity to entreat with me without insulting me, feel free to do so. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you cannot explain how you claim adding the resolved tag takes more time than having every user on the help desk read and possibly respond to an already resolved question? I stated that your argument sounds very childish. Responding with "Boohoo! I take that as an insult!" sounds childish as well. You are the one asserting that your opinion is the only one that matters. It is your responsibility to back it up. -- kainaw™ 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I refuse to discuss issues with those who feel it appropriate to use personal insults. I don't particularly care how you interpret that. WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. I remain willing to debate if you are willing to not use insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Insult? The way you keep using that word makes me think that it doesn't mean what you think it means. Please point out an actual insult, ie: a sentence that is worded something like "You are a ....." -- kainaw™ 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And... I read your rambling complaint about person attacks which boils down to "comment on the content not the contributor." The statement "Your argument sounds childish" is simple English. The subject is "Your argument" Your argument, in this thread, is the content. The "sounds childish" part of that sentence is a comment about the content, not the contributor. Perhaps you should write another essay explaining how your personal content is not content and commenting on it amounts to a personal attack. -- kainaw™ 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Expected behavior. See WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW Third Corollary. If you were serious in your willingness to engage in discussion without using insults, you would avoid using the terms you have cast about. They simply aren't necessary, as I'm quite sure you're aware. I don't see that further meta discussion on whether you think you insulted me or not will be useful. Thank you for your time, and good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In Hammersoft's example, the notice was posted [4] 7.5 hours after the latest (and only) help desk reply [5]. That certainly seems inappropriate to me. If the notice is used then it should be right after the help desk reply when the original poster to unlikely to have seen the reply already. Many new users post to the help desk and some of them don't know where to look for replies, so the link in the notice can be useful. The only purpose of a help desk section is usually to help the original poster with a specific issue. Often that poster is the only who can say whether the issue is resolved. If it isn't marked as resolved then other helpers will spend time reading the section and may write new replies which may or may not match better what the poster wanted (sometimes the first answer is incomplete or wrong, and many questions are unclear). Marking as resolved will take a little time for the poster but probably save considerably more total time for others. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in discussion on this page previously and in some edit summaries I've left upon removing them upon inappropriate placement, I absolutely despise the resolved tags.

1. They give the impression something is resolved because someone has presumptuously made the decision that it is, closing off or at least giving the impression of closing off further discussion;
2. The simple fact that multiple times I've come upon posts that are marked resolved that I felt I needed I to add to, qualify, give additional advice and sometimes correct, shows the folly inherent in that. Yes, there are times when a question is so standard and the answer so clear cut and not susceptible to multiple answers that a resolved tag is almost invariably correct. But the vast majority of questions are not so black and white.
3. A user who sees the resolved tag added may think: "okay I've gotten the final answer on the matter", and thus never come back again to see later posts that actually gave a better answer, or an important follow-up, or even show why the advice they were given was totally wrong. So now that user is on their way doing something the hard way, or the wrong way or even in a damaging way (i.e. violating the GFDL over and over) for the foreseeable future all because someone thought a question was "resolved". This actually happened last week. I came across a question where the answer was simply wrong or, at best, woefully incomplete, and marked resolved. I removed the resolved tag and corrected the answer but probably the user who asked the question never saw it again (and probably right now still doesn't know that he should be blanking attack pages and copyvios awaiting speedy deletion, and likely thinks its inappropriate to do so);
4. The last time we discussed this (as I linked at the start of my post), one answer was to only use resolved when the questioner has explicitly acknowledged they've gotten the answer and believes their question is answered. There's two problems with this. First, a user who's asking a question is uniquely situated to not know on many types of questions whether it's resolved or not—after all, they didn't know the answer so they don't know whether the advice they've been given is correct, seemingly correct or otherwise. "Help me fix this template." You fix it, that's indeed fairly clearly resolved. But the user who says "what's the best way to make columns?/how should I respond to this type of post?/etc. ad infinitum, doesn't know whether they've gotten the correct advice and the process for confirmation of good advice is others' not correcting or adding or clarifying over time, or doing so, in which case the initial advice is modified by the group. Second, it's not working. User's are not waiting for any explicit confirmation and why would they? Only a small number of users saw the last conversation, so other than them, all help desk responders see is resolved templates announcing themselves all over the page. There's no instructions, so they're off to the races, tagging everything as resolved upon any advice that sounds good to them;
5. The help desk is one of the best learning forums on Wikipedia. Anything that tends to curb reading posts is a net loss. People see the tag and: "oh, topic closed, on to the next."
6. The closing of topics in this manner discourages further posts on the topic even if they are read. Thus corrections, better methods, follow-ups are not just cut off from reading, but cut off from being added. To some, the resolved notice may be a complete stop sign. With the template in place they think: "well I might have added my two cents; pointed out this other link; provided a different take on the solution, but I don't want to post to a closed topic." I think this alone far outweighs any benefit of users being able to more quickly scan for "unresolved" topics, which is the only benefit I can see for its use.
7. And that comes full circle back to the earlier point. If you're using the method of scanning posts and skipping those with resolved placed on them, you would be getting this benefit on all cylinders if there was a perfect record of their placement. Those who are using the resolved tags to skip over posts must perforce believe that if the template is placed, that means it is most often actually resolved. Some percentage are, but many are not, and those ones that aren't are less likely to be corrected for the very reason that many who might have better advice are skipping them.

There are other issues such as that these templates are all uselessly sitting in the archives taking up space and creating an eyesore, and they are attracting user's who are doing little else but "helping" the help desk by placing them with little regard for the merits of placement, and they increase edit conflicts which are endemic at the help desk. All this is to say, I think the resolved template should be led out back and executed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I never expected to see such a block of words in a discussion that I see to be very problematic against others. I created the template only to assist askers and make ease of access to their question. I find the help desk useless for people. Do you think that all of questioners actually come back to see their post??? I don't think even half do. They ask, leave, others answer the question not knowing that the asker may never read them, and then get archived and seem to "get lost forever". Of course, there is a search engine, but wouldn't you call that a bureaucracy? Many entries are duplicated day after day. The same question "How do I create an article" is always repeated. So why need the engine? I created the template. The template works just like the Talkback template. It even says you can remove that notice. I thought it would insure new comers to look back at their questions if they ever return to their account. Some of you are already experienced and simply follow the watch list, but the questions are mostly from new users. The template is not even a requirement for those who reply! Instead of creating such argument, why don't you simply find improvements, talk to me about it, or atleast not be rude? I can always remove the template by pasting {{db-g7}}. Simple as that. But I want feedback, not complains. Thank you, ZooFari 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Zoofari, If your post is in reponse to mine, I never once even addressed the templates you created. My post is about the resolved template, not your notification templates. The last discussion about this which I linked is almost as old as your account.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not refering to your comments. I'm originally in reply of Hammersoft. If the resolved tag is such a problem in condition with the reply template, why not just ask for the command of the resolved tag to be removed? (I mean it, it shouldn't be on the template until there is a solution for the resolved tag) ZooFari 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, we've all spotted huge storm in a teacup. Now that this discussion has carried us nowhere but to put down ZooFari's good faith and well intended contribution, shall we get down to discussing something actually useful to the help desk? Whether the templates are needed here or not should be decided down the hall at WP:TFD, so if anyone thinks they are useless please nominate them for deletion. If they are to be kept, then those who want to use them will use them and others are not required to use them. It's the same as with any other template, such as the ones here. Nobody has told us that you must place the resolved template over your question, so just remove the damned line from the template if it bothers you guys so much. Chamal ^talk 12:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out the resolved template is in fact used at WP:AN/I and I think most other similar boards to some (probably a lesser) extent. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Resolved}} template

OK, let's get on with the rest of our Wikilives and discuss something actually useful :) From the above discussions/arguments, it is clear that we have mixed opinions about using the {{resolved}} template. So shall we decide if we actually need this at the help desk, and if so, how should it be used? This template has nothing to do with archiving discussions as in WP:AN etc. It was so far used for the sole purpose of indicating that a solution to a problem has been found. So far, this was understood from the asker's feedback (a simple thank you or saying that the problem is fixed). When something like that is found, one of us usually added the resolved template, or in some rare cases the asker did it. When it is unclear if the problem was solved, we just left it like that (it may have been solved by a given answer but we can't know for sure because there is no response). The idea of using the resolved template is that it shows the people volunteering at the help desk (us) which questions have been solved and which are still waiting for a proper answer. This is supposed to save our time so that we don't waste time reading already resolved questions and can focus on the unanswered ones. But most of still do provide additional answers to questions even if they have been resolved. There is also a question about whether we should keep the answers that come after the resolved template is added separately from the original answers.

Now the question is, do we need to use this resolved template? If yes, what are the requirements for adding it? My opinion is that there's no problem in leaving it as it is and using the currently method for adding it is fine. But I don't think there is a need to categorize answers as "before resolved" and "after resolved", since IMO it makes the before resolved ones look like the perfect ones and after resolved ones like just rag tag answers to polish up the initially given answers. But can we have a discussion on this and let's decide how to carry on with this? Chamal ^talk 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I started this because the above discussion was mixed with comments about the template, about the messages and about personal attacks, and it was hard to understand anything from there. Chamal ^talk 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the above thread yet but I think the template works well. Another purpose of the template is that it gives us a rough idea of how well we're doing - at a glance, we know which questions were dealt with to the questioner's satisfaction. We don't need to add this pointless business of differentiating "before resolved" answers from "after resolved" ones. Date stamps help us figure that out anyway (if we should ever need to, which I'm not sure we would). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the question is the wording: "need" and "require". From what I've read, there is no "need" for the template and nobody is "required" to use it. The argument, which I stated that I found lacking, was based on a concern about being required to use this template because some bureaucracy stated that it was needed. No matter how many times others state that is it not need and not required, the concern continues that the template shouldn't be required by the bureaucracy of the help desk. The template is nothing more than a matter of politeness. If the user is remotely polite, he or she will mark the question as resolved so others don't have to read through the question and responses to see if more answers are needed. -- kainaw™ 12:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented extensively above about this specific template's use. I will not repeat but since there it was a tangent to the main discussion and here it is focused, I have added an anchor. Please see here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a far better argument than (as others have shown) falsely claiming that we are being required to use the resolved tag by the bureaucracy of the help desk. I do not disagree with your argument. However, I wouldn't disallow a questioner to slap a "resolved" tag on his or her own question. -- kainaw™ 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When I see a {{resolved}} template, I read it as if the person who placed the template had written:

• "Speaking for myself only, I can't think of anything else to add to this question. I invite you to tell me something I missed."

Since nobody is omniscient, that leaves open the possibility that someone else might be able to add something. I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's analysis of the pitfalls inherent in any one person's opinion that we have the final word on an issue. It's hard for a responder to be completely sure that the questioner understands the answers, and even if the questioner is happy with the given answers, the questioner may be the least qualified person to know whether the given answers are the best possible answers. So, being aware of these difficulties, I tend to discount the {{resolved}} template, and evaluate a question and the current set of answers about the same way as I would if the template was not there. The template probably adds a little information, but I think anyone who spends much time answering Help desk questions should learn how to interpret it soon enough. A question marked as "resolved" is probably in better shape at the moment than a fresh question which hasn't received any response yet. Thus in our triage approach to the Help desk, we address questions in this descending priority:

1. Questions with no answers get attention first.
2. Then questions with some answers.
3. Then questions with a {{resolved}} template.

Since the Help desk doesn't have too much traffic, a competent volunteer should be able to skim through a full day's worth of questions fairly quickly, getting all the way down to the "resolved" questions. If I see that someone marked a question as "resolved" when the resolution contains an error, I just add what I think is a correction, and trust that whoever marked it prematurely will see the correction and learn from it. The important point to remember is that the Help desk is providing free support. Almost every answer we provide is in writing somewhere, so we are merely providing a convenience to users. If some of the answers are wrong, or an occasional questioner gets led astray, that's what people have to expect with free handouts. TANSTAAFL. Even companies that charge cash money for technical support rarely do a better job than Wikipedia's help desk. Call any tech support line and see what I mean. After your 30 minutes on hold and wading through the voice menus, you finally talk to an overstressed, underpaid employee who may or may not have the answer to your question. Technical support is a disaster throughout most of the IT industry. Who is doing tech support better than Wikipedia? (This is not a rhetorical question - I'm curious to hear of examples, since I have never seen any.) Or check out the other open source projects - who provides better support than we do? If nobody else provides better support, then the {{resolved}} template is probably not doing too much damage. --Teratornis (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to appreciate something here. If an OP sticks resolves on his/her question that likely means they're not checking it out ever again. A few might but most probably won't (given as has already been mentioed most OPs probably don't ever check their question I think it's resonable to suspect a substanial majority don't check it after it's 'resolved). The existance of the resolved template is unlikely to change things much in this regard. There will still be a time when the OP thinks the question is resolved and moves on whether we have the template or not. So having the resolved template doesn't make it more likely the OP will miss new replies. However it does mean if you do feel the existing answers are incomplete or even downright misleading, you know it's a good idea to inform the OP directly since they're probably not checking out the question anymore unlike without the template where the OP may have decided it was resolved and stopped monitoring it but you won't know. Further, I don't see why other users should be entitled to tell someone they're not allowed to respect the OP's view and ignore a question because the OP regards as resolved. Note the key point here is that there's no current expectation that people must ignore resolved questions. You're perfectly free to read and further answer a resolved question. No one is demanding answers stop once a question is resolved. So in other words, all the resolved template does is make it possible for those who choose to use it to tell people they consider it resolved (and s probably won't be checking out nor do they expect/want further responses) and to to enable those who trust an OP's judgement to easily know which questions to ignore. It benefits these people. It doesn't disadvantage others who are still free to ignore the template if they wish. Therefore I personally don't see why people feel it's objectable. Is it really necessary that people who don't want to, have to read questions an OP has marked as resolved; or that an OP is not allowed to annouce when they feel their question is resolved and so probably won't be checking it out anymore? As others have mentioned, it may not even be that someone completely ignores resolved questions, simply it helps them prioritise etc. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Are we going to start a damned argument about so called personal attacks again? Please guys, take it to your user pages if you really want to argue about nothing. Chamal ^talk 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Which is precisely why I removed the attacks without commenting on them. The discussion above that has started seems to be going well, and I saw no reason to upset that cart by allowing personal attacks to continue in it. If User:Kainaw has a concern regarding my behavior, he knows where to go. This is not the place to be commenting on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And... you know where to go if you find a "personal attack". Point one out. Where is there a single statement along the lines of "Hammersoft is a...."? You repeatedly appear to claim that critiques of your argument are personal attacks. Your argument is not you. Statements about your argument are not statements about you. If I have made a statement about you, it was not intentional and I am very sorry. Statements I've made about your argument have (I hope) been stated as my opinion and my view and have, in no way, represented my opinion or view about you as a person. I feel that using your definition of "personal attack", you yourself have personally attacked many people by claiming that anyone who support a little template is part of bureaucratic conspiracy. -- kainaw™ 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh ... The Help Desk. The friendly place at Wikipedia were everyone tries to help each other out. Whoops, did I knock on the wrong door here? Come on folks - let's get back to the task at hand - improvement of the Help Desk page. How can we better serve those who come here hoping to improve their knowledge of how Wikipedia works? — Ched :  ?  15:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to say...

Have a nice day!

The Transhumanist 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunting for hunters

I'm looking for participants for a hunt I'm hosting.

In the hunt we'll be searching Wikipedia for a particular kind of page (outlines). See User talk:Penubag#Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009

It's being run under the Outline of knowledge WikiProject.

My question is, what are the most effective ways to find people for this and let others know about it?

The Transhumanist 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about starting an Index of energy articles (which appears as a red link in one of your examples), using the same format as the Editor's index to Wikipedia which I cloned to make the Editor's index to Commons. The Editor's indices are so handy for organizing internal project knowledge that I've often wished to have article content similarly organized. You might look at the contributors to the Editor's index to Wikipedia to find people who are interested in organizing knowledge this way. --Teratornis (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Helpdeskreply template

Alright. I have made a more reasonable solution to the template.

• The template has been simplified from {{helpdeskreply|1=SECTION|2=~~~~}} to {{helpdeskreply|SECTION}}.
• The template is now 2 lines smaller than it was before.
• The template is to be used for newbies only to prevent complains of needless messages. The reason being is that we experienced users simply use the watchlist. However, new users may not be aware of this function.
• It is not a requirement. So if I hear "needless template" complains, simply turn around and don't use it. This may be very helpful to newbies, so you may have a different view to it.
• If you have the popups gadget enabled, you are able to view the user creations log easily. It would be up to you to determine if the user is inexperienced or not according to date of creation. Other forms of identifying a newbie is seeing if their talkpage/userpage has not been created yet.

Also, please let me know about the solution to the resolved tag. It may be necessary to remove that line from the template. Feedback is always welcomed. ZooFari 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Off site spamming as replacement for help desk

I thought the users here should be aware of {{WikipediaForumHelp}} (anyone think a TfD is in order?) which has been spammed across numerous talk pages of users whose only common element is that they asked questions at the help desk. I have warned the user doing so here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too. G11[6] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding, won't happen again. dottydotdot (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The underlying concept is not necessarily flawed - there are lots of third-party sites that attempt to add value to Wikipedia, such as specialized search engines (see WP:EIW#Search for some examples). The main problem is the conflict of interest inherent with the site owner using Wikipedia to promote the site. Build a terrific tool that adds value to Wikipedia, and other Wikipedia users will notice and list it on our various internal documentation pages that link to such sites. Be like Google, which never advertised itself - Google became huge by first becoming a really solid tool, and letting its users recommend it. Wikipedia, similarly, does not purchase advertising to promote itself. In the world of computers, needing to advertise is itself a possible indication that a product sucks. --Teratornis (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

Removed this [[7]] for trolling. I doubt anyone will have a problem with me deleting it, but just wanted to make my reasons for this removal transparent. Livewireo (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good revert. TNXMan 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an entirely justified and correct revert. tempodivalse [☎] 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC

"Edit conflict" on this page (moved from Project Page)

Why are there little links in blue marked "edit conflict" at the beginning of some of the answers on this page? I mean, who really cares to know if more than one editor has replied within seconds of another? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I use those when reading replies to understand that some info may be duplicated across responses. It indicates that the replies should be read in parallel instead of one-after-the-other. TNXMan 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A very good use of the tags for seasoned editors, but it's not immediately clear that such is the case, and when one clicks on the link, one is taken to a page which tells how to avoid edit conflicts or how to deal with them when they do happen. So the question remains, why are they here on this page, which is dedicated to answering questions, not raising new ones? I would like to propose an end to the use of these little tags on these particular pages, so where do I do that? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You could propose it on our talk page, but the usage of the tags varies from editor to editor. For example, I rarely use the tag, but I know of other people that use it religiously. TNXMan 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)4127345700

I asked this same question a couple of years ago, and notice I used (edit conflict) a section or two above this one :). Why do I use it now? No good reason, just Wikipedia conventions I guess... ~EdGl ★ 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those of us who use the {{ec}} template or just a humble text (e/c) do so, well, because we can... – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the Bill Clinton version of sex with "that woman"! Thanks to all. I will move this discussion to the talk page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Essentially, as a warning that the response may or may not have duplicated information with the previous response, which may give more context as to why two seemingly redundant answers were given to the same question. It doesn't hurt either... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does hurt, because the average reader doesn't know what it means, is confused, clicks on the link and is taken to a page that does not say what you just said. That's what happened to me, and I am by far not an "average reader." The solution is to have some other kind of shortcut or symbol to add to a comment than the one we are talking about. Because posting two responses to one question within seconds of each other is certainly not an "edit conflict". In fact, it may very well be an "edit agreement". GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Titoxd for why I use them (and think that everyone should). GeorgeLouis, I think you misunderstand what an edit conflict is. It's when you go to save, then it doesn't save, because someone else edited the page since you started to edit. I usually still post my answer without looking at the other responses (and add {{ec}} to explain why it may be "off", have duplicate information, etc.) Since an answer still may be of use, it should be saved, not just deleted because someone else posted first. And noting that it was an edit conflict, as I mentioned, explains the situation to everyone.

You also mentioned that when you click the link, it doesn't say what Titoxd said. See, I see it explaining exactly what an edit conflict is. If you think that page needs improvement, however, {{sofixit}} and add more information pertaining to talk pages and comments.

Simply put, when someone has an edit conflict, it's better to mention it than to not. And when someone mentions their edit conflict, it's better to link to that page than not. I don't see how anyone would disagree. Harm can only come from confusion as a result of not mentioning it. If there's not enough information at Help:Edit conflict, more should be added. However, the worst solution is for people to pretend like they're not happening just because the page on edit conflicts is confusing to some. hmwithτ

Temporarily hiding the "create a book" interface

Following concerns raised in the Usability Study, and the proliferation of books of questionable utility, there's an ongoing discussion at VPR about temporarily hiding the "create a book" interface from the sidebar, until the system can be redesigned to be more user- and site-friendly. All welcome to the discussion and straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot holiday

For various reasons, Scsbot, the RD archiving bot that also archives the help desk, is not fully automatic, but rather, is manually kicked off by me each night. It is not quite reliable enough to run in a fully automated manner.

I'm going to be out on a boat for the next two weeks without, I belatedly discover, any Internet access at all. Therefore, there's no way I'll be able to archive the desk for those two weeks. And of course two weeks is far too long for the help desk to go unarchived. I see two options:

1. Someone (or someones) can perform a simplified fully-manual archive of the desk. (See below.)
2. If that's too much trouble or there are no willing volunteers, someone (or anyone) can do a wholesale deletion of swaths of old questions. Then, when I get back to civilization, I can retroactively run the bot on the appropriate old revisions from the page history, effectively reconstituting the archive pages. (But until I did that, the "archived" content would not be visible except in page history; it would not appear either transcluded or on the appropriate archive page.)

The only tricky part about #1 is inserting the boilerplate header at the top of a new daily archive page. That's done with this template invocation:

<noinclude>{{subst:HD Archive header|day|month|year}}</noinclude>

Oh, and I guess the other tricky part is creating the daily table of contents on the monthly archive page. Feel free to not link the individual questions (that is, feel free to settle for how the monthly archive pages used to look, for example this one from 2006).

If anybody falls back on #2, it wouldn't hurt to leave a note here indicating when you did it, and for which desk(s).

See also this thread over on the RD talk pages.

Thanks, and apologies for the inconvenience. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have manually archived the Help desk May 17 to May 21 without linking the individual questions at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/May 2009. I will continue archiving the Help desk in this way and try to do it daily from now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Calabria - Help!

My footnote list is too large. I have multiple entries on some sources. How can I have one entry for multiple entries from the same source?

204.15.6.99 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the Talk page for the Help desk - you wanted the Help desk itself. However, since we're here, I'll answer you: if you name the first reference to a source, then each subsequent reference to the same source you give the name instead of the whole shebang. See WP:Citing sources for details. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

normal archiving resumes

I'm back from the briny, and scsbot will be able to take up the HD archiving again. Thanks to the volunteers (especially PrimeHunter) who took care of manual archiving during my absence, and apologies to all for the inconvenience of some bloat along the way. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a picture of the Diane Stanley who wrote/illustrated the books listed.

Diane Stanley is the author/illustrator of those books, but the picture is not of her. She is my mother, so I'm certain the picture is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.104.184 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Diane Stanley.jpg which is displayed on Diane Stanley? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a photo of your mother that you can release under a free license? —teb728 t c 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

TEB, she already uploaded an new image of her mom here File:Diane portrait at 300.jpg And it was replaced on the article but then George deleted it, so this image can be put back up on the article as it is not the picture that is disputed.. --Ltshears (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the same photo that is on the Diane Stanley website at http://www.dianestanley.com/About%20the%20Author/About%20the%20Author.htm, but I removed the photo until we get clarification or consensus to use it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP was referring to the picture that used to be in the article, not to the new one that was uploaded yesterday and which I added to the article based on a request at Commons (and which you removed). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the good work (barnstar follows). GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The image that you just got removed from the article was the new image File:Diane portrait at 300.jpg.. The old image they were referring to as not being her was this one File:Diane Stanley.jpg --Ltshears (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC) So that image can be put back up. --Ltshears (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, OTRS permission received and File:Diane portrait at 300.jpg is now back in the article. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack

If anyone could help me please.Is it considerd a personal attack if you ask a user what are we diisagreeing upon.Thanks.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends how one asks. Is there a particular message that you are referring to? – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this user and Kansas Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are have disagreements. See User talk:Kansas Bear. If you look at the edit history, both users have removed information cited as a personal attack. hmwithτ 05:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

HENRY V OF ENGLAND, without looking into it too much, I'd recommend checking out dispute resolution. hmwithτ 05:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is for discussing the help desk. Questions like this should be asked on the actual page. hmwithτ 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, looks like both users have been involved, as can be seen in this diff: 1, dispute resolution would probably be best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Post removed

<blanked> (Tyson88x (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Seems like a libelous post to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Post removed, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Interwiki for vi.wiki

{{editprotected}} Please include vi.wiki page vi:Wikipedia:Bàn giúp đỡ to interwiki link for this help desk page. Thank you. Tân (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is only move protected, so you should be able to make this change yourself. --Stephen 05:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question though. Where are the interlanguage links for the help desk? I don't see them on the main edit screen. TNXMan 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to the fully protected Wikipedia:Help desk/Header. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How old is Rome?

Does anybody now how old Rome is because i need to know for school Thanks.

You might find what you are looking for in the article Rome. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. Algebraist 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Read this. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since you say this is for school, you should also read WP:HOMEWORK to realize that we're not really here to give you the answers, but we will point you in the directions that will help you find your own answers. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  07:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Racial Sentence against italians in the portuguese wikipedia

 Invalid - outside en.wikipedia's scope to address. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Ademais, os vênetos são mais claros que a maioria dos italianos e, em contrapartida, os meridionais são mais morenos. (in this sentence the author says that only in a specific italian region there are white people and in the other regions all are ""not white"", please help me to erase this injustice) page http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imigra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_italiana_no_Brasil paragrapher Regiões de origem last sentence You're likely to get a better response if you ask your question on the Portuguese Wikipedia (this is the English one). I see that the sentence you're refering to is cited, but I can't read Portuguese so I can't tell whether it's a good cite. There'll be people better placed to help you in the Portuguese-speaking community on pt.wikipedia.org . I see also that the page you're refering to is now protected after you and a few other editors edit-warred on it. Your best course of action is likely to discuss your objection on the article's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) i ve done it but they ve erased all my posts ,they never answered to me, is this serious ? i think no ,the sentence contains only generalizations (do you want an example ? only in scotland there are people whit blue eyes , is it so?).i wrote also at the italian help wikipedia but they 've underestimated the problem.So I and some friends ve vandalized that page.we done it to answer at an injustice whit another injustice and only beacause no one in the portugese wikipedia answered to me , they sistematically erased my post whitout a reason,i only asked them , please could you erase this sentence? it's false what sentence says. OK, let's take this one slowly. It's possible that the editors at Italian wikipedia erased your post if you placed it in the wrong place, didn't leave an edit summary, or it was hard to understand (for example, if it contained foreign language text). I know that must be frustrating, but wikipedia has rules and you're likely to get a better response if you follow them. For example, your question here isn't in the right place. It should be on the Help Desk, not the Help Desk talk page. (In any case, because it's not about English Wikipedia, it could be argued there's no place for it here at all.) Let's leave that aside and see what we can do about your problem. If you vandalised, and recruited others to vandalise, the page, it's not surprising that the editors at Portuguese wikipedia were unwilling to listen to you. As far as they can see you're trying to hurt the project. If you want to make progress with them, I'd suggest you apologise, explain again what you were trying to do, and show what's wrong with the source the page cites. You're not blocked, so you can still rescue the situation. Like I say, I can't read Portuguese, but it looks to me like the sentence says that Venetians tend to be lighter-skinned and other Italians darker-skinned, which isn't the same thing at all as saying that most Italians aren't white (though I've no idea whether it's true or not). Are you sure you've understood the sentence correctly? Lastly, in any case, I don't see being described as non-white or less-white as "an injustice". It's probably just an error. Be patient with Portuguese Wikipedia, try again on the article talk page to explain your problem civilly, and stay calm. English Wikipedia has a multi-step dispute resolution process you can use to try and solve content disagreements, and I'm sure Portuguese Wikipedia has something similar. Does that help? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) then 1)i wrote my posts only in the discussion page of that idiot article I wrote on italian on english and on portugues,beacause i speak also portuguese,at the beginning i wrote on english and after 10 min, my posts vanished, so i rewrite my post on portuguese after 10 min my posts vanished ,whitout a reason or notices 2)the right translation is (word for word) the venetians are(important they don t use the word "tend",also tend is racistic for me, they use the word ARE) lighter-skinned than other italians (absolutly false and this is racist for me, i read also the source of this sentence and the original source says "the venets was more blonde than other italians..." this is really incredible and really false,i m thinking that on wikipedia whoever can write all wants )and the southern italians are darker-skinned. but this sentence is a generalization, we had a nordmann-viking domination in the past , and there are many people whit blue eyes and blond hair still today here, what are they then? are all venetians? 3) you have been politically correct when you say "It's probably just an error". I ll not be so!,that 's not an error,beacause also in the discussion page there are "other" brazilian people that think that the sentence is absolutly false. 4) unluckily i m seeing that on wikipedia whoever can write all want only citing "doubtful sources", i think that this will be the last my visit on wikipedia. i m sorry for my english. It really does not help posting your problem here. This is a matter regarding the Portuguese Wikipedia and should be discussed and resolved there. We can't tell them what to do without knowing anything. I suggest you check the article's history and see why and by whom your edits were removed. Then you can discuss with them and see what has to be done. The help desk of the Portuguese Wikipedia is here. Directing you there is just about the best we can do, since we neither understand the language nor understand the situation at the article. Chamal talk 11:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) We can't tell Portuguese Wikipedia what to do, period, full stop.  – ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I would like to thank the lord Gonzonoir, now it's finally possible discuss with the ******* portuguese. Important note : The italian administrators not have helped me C'mon england! Please, do not feed this troll, it caused problems here on it.wikipedia, on pt.wikipedia, and it's all about an ininfluent detail in a featured article - which of course it has not the meaning this vandal gave to it. He is registered as Veneto negro. As a sysop on pt.wiki explained me, he began to menace them to write racist phrases about Brasil on the other wikis, after he had forced them to fully protect the page. I deleted his post because it was a troll-ing entry on our help desk. --Austroungarika scold or call 12:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) why do you still erase my posts on italian help wikipedia then? "and it's all about an ininfluent detail in a featured article" also this it's absolutly false,please as i said you on italian help wikipedia(and you have erased also that post),you must read what the other brazilians think about this sentence!!! please you read http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuss%C3%A3o:Imigra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_italiana_no_Brasil section Vênetos são branquinhos, e daí?(the ventians are white?) section Algumas teses absurdas deste artigo (some absurd thesis of this article) but for you all this is still inifluent. This is the reason beacause i wrote here .Because you ve underestimated the problem. i never known a person like you...you re really..... "which of course it has not the meaning this vandal gave to it." i m really whitout words....it s really incredible. the english helped me but not the italians....from today i m not more an italian I'd say Italians gained from your detachment. --82.55.65.210 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC) For more information.--Austroungarika scold or call 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) We seem to be unanimous that there's nothing English Wikipedia can do in this case, so does anyone object if I collapse this whole discussion? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Go ahead. This is just plain trolling. Chamal talk 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Defeated proposal: rename to "Questions about Wikipedia"

I was poking around the German helpdesk (de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia) and was astounded at the differences between that page and this page. I think this helpdesk could do with a few changes. First of all - the name. "Help desk" seems a bit too broad of a title for a page with as narrow of a focus as this one, and it causes confused users to ask inappropriate questions. It's been like that since day one: the "Newcomers' village pump" was moved to the name "Newcomers' help desk" on 13 April 2004, and the first question to be moved to the RD was posted just over an hour later. None were posted under the "village pump" name. The German helpdesk's name can be translated as "Questions for Wikipedia". I think that moving the page to "Questions for Wikipedia" or "Questions about Wikpedia" could cut down on the amount of RD and Astray questions that we get. It seems to work on German Wikipedia: I couldn't even find equivalent templates over there. This renaming would make the page shorter and thus easier to edit.

Now second - the intro to me seems like it would intimidate or confuse the average newbie. All that bold and red underlined text clearly doesn't do much! Plus, the link to the FAQ is in a separate box, making it less likely to be noticed. And the phrase "This page is for questions about how to use Wikipedia" seems a bit awkward - specifically, the "how to use" bit could mean different things to different people. The German intro is well written; it says "Do you have questions about editing Wikipedia and can't find an answer in the FAQ? Then you're in the right place! Questions will not be answered by e-mail, only in this page." Then, it says "Is this the right site for me?" and gives links to their RD, AIV, AN, and MCQ. This reminds users of the rules of the page: to look in the FAQ and no replies by e-mail, and gives links to various pages if the user is not in the right place. A rewritten intro would make this page more friendly to new users.

So, in a nutshell, my two proposals are: rename the page to "Questions about Wikipedia" and rewrite the intro to be more user-friendly and less intimidating. I await your feedback. A mockup of the intro is at User:Xenon54/Sandbox. Xenon54 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the lack of feedback mean no one has any problems with this? I'm going on holiday in a couple of days and will have very limited Internet access, so please speak up now! Xenon54 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for taking the time to draw up all these ideas and bring the issue to everyone's attention. Sorry that no one has really got back to you till now.

Regarding the intro, you bring up some very good points about the current one, however, I think that (though good in principal) User:Xenon54/Sandbox needs to be smartened up and modified before it goes "live". Anyone willing to do this?

As for the idea to rename the page, I have to say a strong no. The current name is good, changing it would be a lot of work for very little result. So whilst I very much like your ideas about the intro, I think the name should remain "Help Desk".

Just my opinion. All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I concour with Spitfire on the name change, will lead to confusion in my opinion i think. As for re writing the intro I think you are on to something and wouldnt mind seeing it developed in a more user friendly way. Right now i do think the box (on the sandbox) is a bit dry and could use some flare to it but it is almost there . kudos for thinking up some ideas! Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer to keep the well-known help desk name. We can handle the stray questions. I fear User:Xenon54/Sandbox (permanent link to examined version) would direct many people away from the help desk when their post actually belongs here. It says "Do you have questions about editing Wikipedia", but questions about reading and otherwise using Wikipedia also belong here. It says "If you have a factual question, please ask it at the reference desk", but many questions about Wikipedia can be called factual. It says "For questions about the software that runs Wikipedia, see MediaWiki Support", but many questions about Wikipedia involve the software and should be asked here. It says "If you have a question about a specific article, then ask it on the article talk page", but many article talk pages have few or no qualified readers, especially if the questioner just created the article. And article talk pages are for discussing the content of the article. Questions may be about other things. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I initially liked this idea, but PrimeHunter raises some good points. The current intro is somewhat confusing, and the replacement should be significantly better. It won't be much use if we get rid of the old problems and introduce new ones. Maybe we need to work on rewording it a bit more. There's no hurry; we can take our time and come up with ideas to improve it. Anyway I agree with the others that there's no need for a renaming of the page. Chamal ^talk 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your feedback, I have made several changes to the intro mockup. Feel free to make any more changes as you see fit. Xenon54 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we just say "general knowledge questions" for the reference desk part? That makes sense and keeps it short and simple, since the longer the text the less likely that someone will read it. As for questions about articles, they are all right IMO; we get questions like that occasionally and we generally handle them OK. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be renamed, but I definitely think that the header needs reworked. I like the wording of the proposed one, but I think that it could look more appealing and organized. hmwithτ 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Which header: the page header or the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Help desk? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The header on WP:Help desk (which was first referred to in this thread as the "intro"), not the editnotice. hmwithτ 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

oh hell.. im so lost by now

i posted a question...how will i know when its answered????????The.blurrz (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Put this page on your watchlist (see Help:Watching pages), or bookmark it and come back later. Theleftorium 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

When you click on edit this page, theres some headers that say do not provide your email address and a bit of other information at the top of the page just before the edit text box. Im just wondering a few things here. There are alot of edits that do post email addresses next to their signatures despite the warning and often we remove them. Would it not be a bad idea to underline in that section or maybe bold not to include an email address, to draw more attention to it? I am not aware of the policies regarding these headers so i may be missing something completely (like not to bold or underline things there, and who actually decides these) but I would be interested to know more about these headings when you are about to make an edit. Thanks a bunch guys for your ideas. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Ottawa4ever, even if we had it in bold, italics, underlined, flashing colours... people still wouldn't pay any attention - and those who do pay attention to it notice it as it already is! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If people actually read those headers, we won't be getting so many questions in the first place. I don't think it would make much of a difference, but no harm trying I guess. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that, for the most part, generally those who include email addresses are not native English speakers. Thus the warning would likely not be understood or completely ignored - think about it, on the Spanish Wikipedia you wouldn't pay that much attention to warnings if they're in a language you're not familiar with.  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not being a technical bod 'n' all, I've no idea how it could be done, but would it be possible to create a bot that would find e-mail addresses on the help desk pages (and only on those pages) and remove them? PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be an idea to create a bot on the safe side. But agreed it probably wouldnt make a difference to bold it i guess. But again the process of how this text (above the input text box warning people)is placed makes me curious.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If this can be included in User:Sinebot? It could check as it adds the unsigned tags. Shall we make a feature request? (Although I don't know if this is entirely possible) ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea - I'll bet there's a lot of overlap.--SPhilbrickT 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To change the editnotice (which only an admin can do) go here Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Help desk (for user pages its normally "User:User name/Editnotice"). It might be worth making a request for an admin to edit it on the talk page using {{editprotected}}. Personally I would support underlining the part about not providing E-mail addresses. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I requested for an Edit filter for people using email address (here). At the moment it just logs matching edits, but in the future a warning could be given to users. I would prefer to keep the Help desk instructions minimal and not too off putting (with bold and underling, red text etc).--Commander Keane (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The editnotice is not protected. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is =). I know that the tab says "edit page" rather then "view source". But if you click the edit page you will only be able to view the source, trust me :p Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Navigation box

Can we add something like this to the Help Desk's edit notice? It would save tons of time • S • C • A • R • C • E • 12:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit notice should be designed exclusively for the people who ask questions. There are already too many of them who apparently skip the current text. I would prefer to not add text aimed at others. The helpers should know where to get templates if they want to use them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so. For ease of reference I have {{Help desk templates navbox}} transcluded on my user page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with PrimeHunter. If people get confused now, more might get confused if they see this. The page is not hard to access, just WP:HDT and we can easily remember the more commonly used ones like {{creation}}. ≈ Chamal ^talk 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter. Those of us who reply regularly know the templates (I used to have it in my Favourites, now - following Ukexpat's example - I have the navbox on my user page!). It would only be confusing for those people who are asking questions. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“I want to start a new page”

I’m questioning whether we are providing the best possible answer when we respond with a template containing information about how to start a new article. As an analogy, if someone came to a coach and asked how to go about running a marathon, and the person had never run in their life, do you think the right answer would start with selecting the right type of shoe, and making sure you properly pace yourself? Don’t you think the advice would include running some shorter distances first?

It’s possible a person who has zero edits can create a passable article. It’s also possible that a person who has never run can complete a marathon first time out. the probability of both are quite low.

I bet this is analyzable, if someone knew what they were doing. My guess is that the proportion of people whose first edit is a new page have under a 1% chance of having that page. If we knew this number, wouldn’t if be a more helpful answer to say something along the lines of “Experience shows that people whose first editing experience is the creation of a new article fail over 99% of the time. You are encouraged to try editing other articles first, perhaps ones that are related to your area of interest. After you have experience editing existing articles, your chances of success creating a new article will be much improved. If your sole goal is to see an article on subject x in wikipedia, consider adding to WP:REQ, where a more experienced editor may start the article. Or do both.” This is rough, and needs massive editing, but I think it is better advice than the current approach. I assume this issue has come up before. Does someone know if a discussion exists? I am surprised that the consensus has developed that new people with zero experience editing should essentially be encouraged to jump right in. I understand the concept of wp:bold, but this is a step beyond that, and I don’t think it is good advice.--SPhilbrickT 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, SPhilbrick - perhaps you could design a template in your user space which has the kind of message you think could be used? Then get people to look at it, suggests improvements, etc - and then put it up as a candidate for an official template (well, I know that officially there are no official/non-official ones, but you know what I mean!)... I don't know where you put it up, but that's something that could be sorted when the template is ready! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I'll try mocking up something. Probably won't have time until the weekend—in the meantime, I'll watch this space to see if someone strongly feels the current paradigm is the right one.--SPhilbrickT 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

<-I created a first draft at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for new editor advice. Here's the possible text, which could be added to a template. As noted, I think we give bad advice when we tell with zero editing experience how to start a new article. I realize the "first article" page does suggest they should start editing first, but that isn't working, so this might make the point a little clearer. One nitty detail—I haven't researched the 99% claim, if we want to use a stat, we probably should back it up and I'll need some help figuring out how to do that.

Draft of Advice to someone asking how to start an article

Writing an article for Wikipedia is harder than many people realize. Over 99% of all articles submitted by someone with no other editing experience in Wikipedia are deleted. Even professional writers find that the format and style needed for a good encyclopedia article are different than what might be appropriate for other venues. If your only goal is to make sure that an article is added to Wikipedia, you are urged to visit WP:RA where you can request that someone write an article on the subject. If you are interested in becoming an editor at Wikipedia, our experience demonstrates that it is better to start by improving existing articles, which will help you get a sense of how this place works, and then writing your first article from scratch. A good place to visit is WP:BL, where there are literally hundreds of thousands of articles needing help from editors. Find an article in a subject area you know, and add a source, or a reference, or simply help write it better. If you do decide to write an article immediately, please read WP:COI, to help make sure you don't have a Conflict of Interest, then read WP:FIRST, which will repeat some of the good advice above, then tell you how to start writing your first article. Make sure you start it in a User Subpage. You can edit to your heart's content in a sandbox, and no one will interfere, but as soon as it is in the main Wikipedia space, anyone can edit it, and anyone can propose it for deletion.

--SPhilbrickT 14:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points - "different than what ..." should be "different to those which ...", "hearts" is the plural, not the possessive, of "heart" (should be "heart's"), and "If you want to ignore this advice, and attempt ..." sounds a bit bitey - how about "If you do decide ..." DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"different from those which ..." – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a whole new can of worms! DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are quick, thanks.

• I thought it would be better to say "style and format" rather than "steps" so the first advice is affected by that.
• Fixed possessive
• I agree, too bitey, took your advice--SPhilbrickT 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed missing link to WP:BL. Looking good to me, Sphilbrick! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

<-Thanks for the postive feedback. I created two templates, both of which should be used with substitution (as we might tweak the language):

• {{subst:New editor advice}}
• {{subst:NEA}}

The second transcludes the first, so if there are further tweaks to the wording, the first should be edited.--SPhilbrickT 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)