Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Problem with Sandbox

This question is more of a "someone left their carlights on" question, but Clark98 or one of the wiki-masters in charge of this, someone has hacked and vandalized the Sandbox page which I (and I sure any other user) can't use. Please fix this immediately. Someone really did not leave a nice message there. (76.107.210.53 (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Appears to be gone now. Garden. 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent constant use of the resolved template

I find it stunningly annoying; profoundly useless; garish. At times improperly applied, it cuts short dialogue and wastes server time, makes the help desk look like an automation fest, draws the eye away from the content. Just me two cents.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also annoyed that {{resolved}} is often marked as soon as someone answers, even if it's the wrong answer. (In such cases, I generally leave the resolved tag there but write the correct answer in the section anyway.) --ais523 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop using it then. ;) I thought it was the help page practice so I blindly followed, but yes, some of them have been inaccurately placed. I'll add something to the top of the page a bit like at WP:FAC, where graphics like {{done}} and {{not done}} were putting loading strain on an already backlogged page. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It's actually in the how-to guide, which I assume was written with consensus (? maybe). If no one objects in the next few days, I'll reverse what it says and ask editors not to use the resolved template. In the mean time, I'll message those listed on the WP:HPP page with a link to this discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree.The template is becoming just a tad bit annoying.How about only HPP's and admin's can put it on this page? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just created this:

Resolved

. This does not have an image, just a unicode tick. {{resolved3}} SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we only put it there if the user says something like: 'thanks, that fixed it' or similar (and, of course, users can add it themselves). I like {{resolved3}}, it should speed up loading...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes I agree. I think there are two main issues: page loading and incorrect placements. I've noticed quite a few "blitz" resolveds (sorry about the bad neologism!) on the page which don't help the requester if they're not getting the answer they're looking for. I like the idea of only placing it when it is clear that the editor has explicitly said they're satisfied. Lack of activity could mean waiting for more responses, so just because there hasn't been a reply in 25 minutes it doesn't mean that it's necessarily resolved. Other opinions and links unknown to the original volunteer are also appreciated, especially by the requester. And yes, {{resolved3}} is perfect, considering how long the page is on a daily basis. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As a counter-point, I find the "resolved" template a very helpful tool when used correctly (e.g. the user says "thanks!"). For me, a greater evil than closing a discussion too early is to miss a question altogether. Sometimes when there are a lot of questions in the queue, it is hard to tell which ones have been resolved and which one might still need to be looked over. I can very quickly scan over the entire HD page and quickly pick out the ones without a resolved tag on it to see if further help is needed rather than scanning each and every entry. Without this quick-scan ability, I'll more likely just jump to the bottom of the page, potentially missing any questions that have roamed to the top unanswered. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A basic principle of communication is that merely sending a message is insufficient evidence that it reached the recipient. Therefore all effective communication protocols explicitly incorporate some mechanism whereby the recipient acknowledges receipt back to the sender. (See also Voice procedure, Hasty generalization, and Argument from ignorance.) Placing a {{resolved}} template without first hearing from the questioner that the answer satisfies the questioner is like pretending Murphy's law no longer applies. The assumption can fail in at least two ways:

• The answer may be wrong.
• The answer may be correct for the question as stated, but the questioner may discover, upon trying to apply the answer to the real problem, that the questioner stated the question incorrectly, and thus the questioner still needs help.

Then again, most questioners never tell us whether we solved their problem, so only a small minority of questions could get a "resolved" template if we wanted to be rigorous about it. We can't realistically expect questioners to adhere to any sort of protocol on the Help desk, since many new users are lucky if they can just edit a question. If an experienced Help desk volunteer thinks the question is resolved, that's probably right more often than wrong.

However, despite all that, I myself haven't noticed a serious problem from hasty resolved templates. When I see that a "resolved" question isn't really "resolved," I just add whatever I can think to add. (The Help desk history shows several instances where I added onto a "resolved" question, and I think I've corrected a few wrong answers.) The presence of the "resolved" template doesn't make much difference to me. I haven't had a problem with loading time for the Help desk page, particularly since I recently bought a new computer. I've noticed that the Help desk loads much faster on my fast new computer than on my older slower computers. Then again, I'm in the U.S., so I may have a faster connection to Wikipedia's servers than users in other parts of the world. I can believe loading time matters for some users, given how the Help desk is currently just an ordinary wiki page (and not a true threaded discussion system which would let a reader load just the latest replies, efficiently). I agree that the absence of "resolved" templates is a useful visual cue; I probably focus more on those questions, since we at least know that nobody on the Help desk thinks they have been resolved yet. --Teratornis (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←So, from quickly skimming through this discussion, I'm going to say that - 1.)Replace {{resolved}} with {{resolved3}} 2.)Only mark resolved if it really is resolved, as in, the questioner replies saying the question is resolved. Matter finished? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's

Resolved

, yeah...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the people who pointed out that the "resolved" tag is sometimes put in when the issue hasn't actually been resolved. My own question, Google help, was never satisfactorily resolved. If there's no clear answer, just say that there's no clear answer. I'm fine with that. But don't say that the issue is resolved when it isn't. Dismas|^(talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually roam the page and mark as resolved threads that seem completely closed, I hope I haven't made any errors in that department and I do take many precautions. If it's agreed upon the others, I'll tag them resolved3 from now on and in the case of repeated errors, I will stop altogether. My reasoning is that tagging resolved issues really helps direct the helpers' attention to unresovled issues. However, I can see where this could create errors if everyone tags - perhaps we can come up with some system where certain editors have the helper community trust to tag threads as resolved.. just a thought/suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony of this thread being boxed and collapsed thus essentially marking it "resolved" less than 6 hours after my opening post, before I even had a chance to comment as the original poster (I posted and went to work), is almost perversely appropriate. Why would this be closed at all and hidden, which is usually done only for courtesy blanking based on privacy reasons? Certainly not after 6 hours, though I don't see why it would ever be. Anyway, back to the topic. I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds. In fact, I wasn't sure when I posted anyone would agree with me about the use of the template at all, I just thought I'd throw it out there. But let me say a bit more about why I think the use of resolved should be stopped entirely; the "solution" of using {{resolved3}} instead of the predecessor template in no way addresses my objection, which do not resolve to server load and misplacement.

• First the server issue, was really just a side note, but I wasn't thinking of page loading time. What I meant was that users are making separate edits and saving solely to add the template which is just a waste. Its use also raises the likelihood of edit conflicts which is something of a plague when you are a regular on the help pages. Again, just a side note.
• The help desk is one of the best learning forums on Wikipedia. Anything that tends to curb reading posts is a net loss in my opinion. I think the use of the template has this effect by its draw of the eye away from the content and its essential closing of the topic, whether correctly or incorrectly done. "oh, topic closed, on to the next."
• The closing of topics in this manner has a much more insidious effect: It discourages further posts on the topic. Even if a topic looks closed, even clearly so, you cannot possibly know what someone else may have to offer. Especially with respect to non-regulars who won't know to ignore it and post anyway. I imagine seeing the template in place will often result in a user saying to themselves words to the effect: "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." None of them should be closed solely for this reason. While there are times when I've seen the template patently prematurely applied, in my opinion before the help desk is archived it's always too early. 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.
• The poor archives! What purpose can this possibly serve in the archives but to hog space and be an eye sore? If we must use it the archiving bot should remove all of them as part of its task.

Okay, end rant. And everyone: take a bow for being help desk (and other help page) regulars. I personally think we perform an invaluable task for the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for my reply. 1.)I collapsed it as it was getting long, not to resolve it. Resolving discussions is what the AfD close templates are for. 2.)The point of the help desk is to get questions, inform the questioner of the answer, and repeat. All other effects just happen to be side effects. 3.)OK, the resolved template does waste tons of edits. But it does, as said above, focus attention on the un-replied questions. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing a recent and modestly sized thread such as this is not customary at all and has a decided chilling effect on its dissemination but I don't want to belabor the point, it's off topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No intention to be a stickler, but I also felt it was collapsed a bit unduly. I just raised a thought/suggestion and suddenly, the thread was closed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment re the resolved tick, and the "done" tick that pops up sometimes in the ref desks, I quite like the friendly effects of it, like being watched over [Hey, we got a tick for that] Cheesy, I know, but just offering my own lighter take on the tick though the issue above is important too. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, a little laughter can't hurt anyone. But I don't think the template should be used the way it was (if at all), I personally didn't use it. For one thing, my browser (which surprisingly was IE7) couldn't identify the unicode symbol (it was shown as one of those boxes) until I installed a language pack just recently. Not everyone might be able to see it. I agree with having something to mark answered questions but maybe we should have a time limit guideline, for example: "Add resolved if user had responed affimitivly, or question was answered to a satisfactory amount and 1 day has passed without any more discussion/questions".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

? Resolved.

Sunny910910 is correct— we need to be prepared to answer questions about why the Resolved template has a big question mark when readers have problems with Unicode support. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this is an issue suddenly. This is the same system that is used on all the noticeboards without issue for a very long time. Pick any noticeboard from Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards and you'll see exactly what I mean. If nothing else, the most compelling reason to keep the system as-is is simply to provide consistency, rather than throwing yet another one-off system at our users. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no system. The help desk is not a noticeboard. It's inconsistently used where it is in use. There are analogous places where it is barely used at all such as the village pump.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a "notice board" and a "help board" is academic at best. The users making the requests won't see a difference and frankly I don't either. However, you've not really answered the question. Why is this suddenly an issue HERE and not an issue anywhere else? Why isn't the fact the there are resolved tags all over the COIN archives not a problem but they are "an eye sore" here? Why aren't the resolved tags being crucified on AN/I for edit conflicts, but they are here? Why are we proposing yet another -- and different -- system (however loose it may be) that will be used nowhere else but on WP:HD? We're here to help the users and I strongly feel that being inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia is not a good way to accomplish this. I realize that Wikipedia itself is not consistent, but that's no excuse to further increase the problem. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Fughettaboutit but I will say that there is very little need for a resolved template here. At WP:ANI and WP:AN, there are user disputes, consensus issues and finally a resolution. Not so here. It's just a place to ask help, and threads very rarely go beyond six or seven posts. It's about user satisfaction, not consensus. The user can see if their question has been answered, and if they really wanted to know they'd check back. If they're unsatisfied, they can continue the thread, so marking it as resolved is sometimes incorrect; but in the end, it's not really necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that's it's really useful I don't think, but "why now, why here?" Because I edit here a lot and for a very long time so it's where I noticed it; because its heavy use here is of recent origin. I reject the idea that this is in any way a system. But if you want to run with system and consistent, then adding the template is a new system for the help desk and inconsistent with its normal functioning. Ever policy, guideline, recommendation, change in something on Wikipedia comes through someone proposing it or discussing it. I don't think your point addresses the substantive issue of whether the template's use is good or bad. Meta concerns are valid, but I think they're of little weight here, where there is no established "process" sought to be overhauled. Thank you Peter for the point above. This rushed post is the last possible for me for many many hours btw.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my questions and concerns being marginalized as "meta" or the condescending tone. That's not really fair or constructive at all. The use of the resolved template was added to the "how to guide" a year ago. Therefore, to say that this is "new" is ludicrous. Because its been well established for a long time, I don't think asking "why now?" is in any way unreasonable. It may help us find a compromise point if we know what changed over the last year to suddenly make you want to speak up. You see, I find the tags a very useful communication tool. If they are being used in an inappropriate manner, fine. That can be easily adjusted. However, I'd rather not stop using the communication tool completely unless there is a very compelling reason. So far, I've not heard one that convinces me that if a thread is really and truly closed, that it shouldn't be marked as such. Perhaps you can work with us to find a happy middle ground? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A proccess would be a good idea. I've made some suggestion above and had another one in mind but it would seem as though consensus is forming to not use the tag. I honestly don't understand why this is such a huge concern - it's not as if discussions can't be re-opened if they are unresolved. Anyways, I'd appreciate some consideration with my previous suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion. The reasons it was brought up was because 1) it was significantly slowing down the page loading time (and considering my laptop is on its last legs I've noticed it) and 2) because the tag was being incorrectly placed. I know you've said above that you often mark dormant sections as resolved, and this has no reflection on your edits, but discussions can be dormant for a number of reasons. New users aren't as active, so it could be a while before they respond. If new users see their posts prematurely patrolled, they may be put off. I repeat that the help desk isn't WP:ANI, so leaving discussions open seems a better alternative. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't close dormant help requests, only ones that have been fully addressed to and there seems to be nothing else that could be added to the discussion in them -- When I'm uncertain, I leave it open. For me it really helps to be able to skip issues which were properly addressed to. However, I can see where this could lead to people closing threads irresponsibly and therefore some process might be great to save time for the helpers so they won't read through a thread which was already properly handled. Arbcom for example have their trusted clerks, why not have a couple of "trusted helpdesk clerks" also? We can also come up with basic guidlines for this. Anyways, for me it would have a hampering effect to not being able to skip already resolved issues.

Thinking about moving the discussion forward... Should we make a mini poll thing for suggestions/perspectives on this?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I neglected to mention this, but the number of times people actually return to say thanks is almost non existent and waiting on this culture to change is as good as waiting for a rock to turn to fire (I just came up with that one). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some rocks actually can burn. --Teratornis (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Tan | 39 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you caught while it was a vandalised redirect to...somewhere else!! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick analysis of the impact of the resolved templates on the page as there was a concern that it was slowing the page down "significantly". I used the version of page that was in effect at the time this thread started as a reference point [1]. Each resolved box takes up 467 bytes. The checkmark graphic is 537 bytes. On the reference page, the resolved box appeared 39 times. All told, the boxes used up 18,213 bytes. If you add the checkmark (which is loaded only once), the grand total is 18,750 bytes. The total page size (not including the monobook theme, background, CSS, JavaScript, etc) was 269,439 bytes, thus the boxes made up just a little less than 7% of the total page size. On the version of the page that existed as I wrote this, there were 28 resolved boxes and 10 resolved3 boxes (at 333 bytes each). This makes up a total of 16,943 bytes out of a total page size of 354,626 bytes -- or 4.8%. For comparison purposes, the Wikipedia logo in the upper-left and the "Powered by MediaWiki" logo in the lower-right combined are 18,395 bytes. I'm drawing no conclusions from this data, just reporting it as it is. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the template should be eliminated, I personally never use it. Many a time a person responding adds it, when really they could be completely wrong and inaccurate. Also, I don't believe a lot of questions can be completely 'solved'. Yes the persons question can be answered, but someone passing could see the topic and may have something to add. This template completely stops this.

All in all the template is to me personally, annoying. I can scroll down the page and every so often see the resolved things, then when I don't see one I stop and read but the question is still solved, making searching very irritating and annoying. If the template was eliminated or completely consistent with everyone using it, which will NEVER happen (like waiting for a rock to turn to fire!). The best option then is to eliminate it.

Adam (Manors) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll yield to the consensus which is obviously forming here. The only holdouts right now are me and Jaakobou and I don't think Jaako is too strong on the keep side (just my impression). Therefore, I'm officially dropping the stick and backing away.  :) :) Someone should update the how-to page though. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm... so have we reached a consensus to not use {{resolved}} on the Help desk yet, or should we wait? Don't want to update the how-to page too early... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't really reach a consensus, as there is plenty of people who contribute to the Help Desk who haven't seen this, and more new people will become involved every day. We could only come to a consensus if a message was placed saying explicitly to NOT use it and using it would be considered spam, which I don't like the sound of. Adam (Manors) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a poll with a notice on the helpdesk page? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would require changing the header, which I think is currently protected or something, and I don't think we need a discussion about how we're going to put it somewhere on the header... but it's a good idea. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds made an announcement to everyone in the HPP WikiProject on May 28th, so all interested parties have been informed. Based on that, if we wait, say, 5 days from that date (June 2nd) for everyone to chime in, I think that's fair and sufficient. However, even though I'm clearly on the other side of the matter (I favor the tags as a communication tool between HPPers), its clear the consensus is going the other way. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I figure a poll with multiple helpers participation would help resolve this issue long term so that no one will complain about it in either direction and restart long discussions over a resolved issue. Just my two cents. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned before, how about only established users can use the template?Like HPP's and admins.We actually don't really need it, any user can just read the disscussion and figure out if its resolved or not. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it much easier to help if I skip over reading the discussions which are already resolved. I also came up with the "established users" suggestion. I'm thinking we've went over this enough for people to make up their minds. Anyone interested in opening the poll? (options as I see them: (1) no tagging, (2) established helpers may tag + basic guidelines will be made for "resolvers") Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Archival

Someone who knows what they are doing should archive this talk page all the way up to the above discussion about the {{resolved}} template. It's getting very long. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that shortly. --RyRy5 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be archived when June begins. This page is archived every month from the looks of the other archives. Let me double check.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should wait a few more months before archiving this talk page. The average amount of time this page is archived is about 5-6 months. --RyRy5 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, i disagree with your last statement i don't think that the archiving should be based on a arbitrary no of months.The page is long, way to long you should archive when June begins.

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I understand that. Okay, I will archive most of this page at the beginning of June. --RyRy5 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've archived everything up through April 2008. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New Header

Do you like the new help desk header I designed. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed first. I'm not sure about it, and the original was fully-protected. Please discuss major changes before implementing them; WP:BOLD is great but this is a very highly visible page. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

However, this is the format for the archives. Why not the main help desk? StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Help Desk heading, because I visited it yesterday only to post a note about the resolved template. However from the little I do remember, there were several templates transcluded into several other templates, and the way it was done looked quite complex. I've fully protected the current heading, but I presume the other one was agreed on by consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly take some of the better parts and incorporate them into the old one, but I'm not a big fan of this in its entirety, sorry. I'm putting the old one back for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the huge THIS IS ABOUT WIKIPEDIA ONLY was totally unnecessary. People still asked normal questions. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some people die in car crashes despite wearing seatbelts is not a reason to get rid of seatbelts. One also must consider how many lives they save. Evaluating the impact of instructions on Wikipedia is difficult because the failures are much more evident than the successes. When someone reads the instructions in Wikipedia:Help desk/Header, and as a result does not ask an inappropriate question on the Help desk, we have no indication that the instructions worked - but in that case they did work. I suspect, but cannot prove, that our link to search the Help desk archive is working, because:

• Searching the Help desk archive really does answer a lot of repetitive questions, if people actually try it.
• The number of questions on the Help desk seems to have declined slightly since we added that instruction. In particular, the extremely repetitive questions such as "How do I create a new article?" seem to have declined slightly, although such questions are still frequent.

Since Wikipedia is still growing by every measure, we could expect Help desk traffic to grow in proportion. But it doesn't seem to be. --Teratornis (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

True, people still to ask question more appropriate for the Reference Desk here, but (though it is just my personal memory), I think that they ask many fewer such questions that they did in the past, when we didn't have such a huge disclaimer about what this page was for. -- Natalya 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody would classify all the Help desk questions for the past year or two, so we could generate reliable statistics that might correlate with our tweaks to the Help desk header. (That would be quite a job.) That still would not prove that the header tweaks caused any changes in the frequency of repetitive or inappropriate questions, but it might become harder to argue that nobody reads the instructions. Classifying the questions would have another clear benefit: it might reveal gaps in the WP:FAQ. I'm pretty sure we have a number of questions that come up more than once, for which the FAQ has no entries yet. Links to FAQ entries would be smaller and more efficient than standard response templates, just in case we ever start feeling the need to shrink the Help desk and make it load faster. (I personally don't find the Help desk size to be a problem just now, but apparently some people find it unwieldy with slow connections.) Links to FAQ entries would also make it easier to compile further statistics on the frequency of repetitive questions, in case anyone wanted to compile such statistics (something that would be nice, but realistically I doubt anyone would want to compile such statistics). --Teratornis (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I should point out that many policies and procedures seem to result from hunches and opinions rather than hard data. It's hard to collect the kind of statistics that would let us really know what we are talking about on a lot of issues. --Teratornis (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The last time we discussed the header I had done a (admittedly crude and small) statistical check of the use of {{RD2}} for the month before and after we added the strong heading that the help desk was only for question about USING Wikipedia, and found that the template's use was reduced by 2/3, thus implying that misplaced RefDesk questions were less common after the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could modify WP:CREEP where it says: people don't read instructions, to: one third of people don't read instructions. Seriously, if nobody reads instructions, Wikipedia could not work at all. This whole site is a giant do it yourself project. The only way to get anywhere is to read instructions. Lots of instructions. Some people miss some instructions, but I think most users are trying. They have to be. --Teratornis (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Template

There has been a discussion about using {{resolved}}, so I created {{resolved3}}. If there is a bot that archives the talk page, can we not set the template so, if the subject is resolved, it's archived, otherwise, its left. StewieGriffin! • Talk 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, all it should be archived on a fluid basis, as the page does (by its very nature) get very long on a daily basis. I can foresee it getting very out of hand, so I think changing the behaviour of the archive bot will be a mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, changing the behavior of the current archiving bot in this way isn't really an option. There are bots that look at the activity of individual threads and decide whether or not to archive them individually, but Scsbot isn't one of them. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing Template?

Hi. I've uploaded the SVG version of an image on Commons.

now I see the "SVG image needed..." template can be changed with "SVG image available..." but I really can't work out how to do that.

can anybody help? thanks

this is the page I would like to edit

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Germanen_50_n._Chr.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiovanni (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving this to the main page -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

new Hebrew/Yiddish (?) interwiki links

Within the past day or two, someone added these two new interwiki links:

[[he:ויקיפדיה:דלפק ייעוץ]]

[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:טעכנישע פראגעס]]

But they added them at the top of the page, and they're messing up the archiving bot. Can someone figure out where they belong, and move them there? Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They were already at Wikipedia:Help desk/Header where they belong so I removed the duplicates at top of Wikipedia:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Splendid. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was my bot, sorry for that! You might be interested to block certain bots from editing that page by using Template:Bots! --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't Access I-281

Everytime I try to access the I-281 page it brings me to I-481's page. --Did someone set it to do that or what?

--Check77 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Entirely intentional. There is no I-281, but I-481 once went by that designation. You may find the road you're looking for at List of highways numbered 281. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I-281 (and I-481) is a Wikipedia:Redirect to Interstate 481. [2] shows it was made by SPUI. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you referring to I-281 in New York, correct? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan's I-200 class submarine series never got past the single digits, so I-281 would not have been an Imperial Japanese submarine designation. Just in case anyone was wondering. --Teratornis (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Refdesk

Is it cool to move Refdesk questions to the Refdesks and leave a note indicating where the question was moved to? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It think it's better to just leave one of the standard {{RD}} templates, and have the asker move it, but I don't know what we're supposed to do. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay if you are sure that they are really, patently of that stripe. I would say at least a dozen times I have started posts here explaining to the first responder why the question asked is actually quite a good fit on this page. Of course, be sure to give the full link with the section moved to and all, e.g., Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Section name. I agree with Calvin, though, that I think it's a better practice to {{RD}} them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

John Agnello page

Hi - I am trying to add a new page for John Agnello (music producer, recording engineer). When I go to his name, I am re-directed to John Gotti Agnello. Can you change this so I can add his bio, etc.? There are several Wiki pages for bands that are directing people to John Gotti Agnello as producer. Very funny but incorrect. thanks!! sharon Sharonagnello (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

John Agnello is the name of someone significant, who is not at this name for reasons detailed in WP:Naming conventions. Therefore, your John Agnello will need to have a qualifier; for example, John Agnello (music producer). That disambiguates him from the more significant John Agnello. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But John Gotti Agnello is redirecting from John Agnello, which is not really the name that John Gotti Agnello goes by. When musicians set up their Wiki pages, they are not going to know to list John Agnello as "John Agnello (music prodcuer)". Someone with the name of Tresiden had deleted the redirect for me before and put "John Agnello" under construction so that I could enter info about the music producer into the page. Unfortuantely, the bio wasn't ready at that time and the redirect reverted back to John Gotti Agnello. Could you or someone else remove the redirect that forces John Agnello to be redirected to John Gotti Agnello? If someone is looking for John Gotti Agnello, they can most certainly fine him by typing in "Gotti".Sharonagnello (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When your article John Agnello (music prodcuer) is ready, you can replace the redirect with a disambiguation page. —teb728 t c 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd "]" next to "Skip to the bottom"

I have searched and searched to find what is causing the stray ] next to the "skip to the bottom" link at the top of the page. It doesn't seem to be in the header. The odd thing is if you view a preview, without making any changes, it does not exist. Does anyone know what is causing this? Scottydude _talk 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any stray brackets anywhere... GlassCobra 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it too and what's more I know what it is! If you have the "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" option checked in your user interface gadgets in Preferences, there is a lead section [edit] link there which is partially obscured by the "skip to the bottom" box, leaving just the ] visible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He's right you know! DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving it over a bit to the left. (by the way, ukexpat is right) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about moving it over to the right to obscure the errant ]? The lead section edit link isn't really needed on the Help Desk anyway. I don't know where the code for the "skip to" boxes is on the Help Desk. I have them on my user and talk pages, but only because someone kindly posted the code somewhere and I happened to see it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

← The code for the skip-to link is on Wikipedia:Help desk/Header, which is conveniently fully-protected at this time :P

The specific code:

<div style="position: absolute; top: 1.3em; right: 1.3em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px; background: #FFFFFF;" class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks"><small>[[#footer| Skip to the bottom ]]</small></div>

Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh... Didn't even think about that. Duh... I agree with Ukexpat about moving it to the right. That edit button isn't needed on the help page. Thanks everyone! Scottydude _talk 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Per the discussion above, move the skip-to div to the right ~5px or so, to completely obscure the edit-lead link. You can't see the problem here, but it's apparent here. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's good. Not sure what'll happen when you change font size though, seeing that the margins are in em and not px... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would I change the font size...? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean changing the font size using your browser (CTRL + +/-), not in the code. Some people enlarge the text for readability, etc. And there shouldn't be problems (I got mixed up over ems and pixels :P). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 08:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes it does work correctly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that Wikipedia:Help desk be merged with Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) under the name of Wikipedia:Help desk, but with the different pages/categories that the Village pump has. I think this could be best technically accomplished by merging the Help desk into the Miscellaneous page of the Village pump ( Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) )(and then renaming all pages with "Help desk" (for example, "Wikipedia:Help desk (policy)". Help desk has the better name. (Wikipedia:Village pump, which would become a redirect, is always accompanied by text for explanation of what it is, so it won't be too confusing.) --WikiWes77 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a merge of WP:HD and WP:VPA might be in order, but I don't think we should merge pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) because those are more for high level discussion by experienced Wikipedians while the help desk is more for newbies. - Icewedge (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the proposal, following your suggestion. --WikiWes77 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI there is also Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to think about. - Icewedge (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This, along with looking at the links and tips at the top of the pages, actually persuades me that I may still have the wrong proposal. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests has the same group of links at the top as WP:VPA. Perhaps Fuhghettaboutit would agree to having WP:VPA redirect to Editor assistance/Requests. Maybe we should take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests and start again. Sorry if this has become a bother. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. They serve fundamentally different functions; different class of users both as to answerers and questioners; would leave tens of thousands of past links confused by a redirection to a different page name; huge numbers of users already know the function of the village pump so changing the name may confuse them; no evidence has been provided that "village pump" actually leads to any great confusion; none of the pages are broke so no need to fix; other than (assistance), village pump is sometimes used to obtain help but is not a help forum; generic is not always better.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Icewedge (The above "oppose" comment was for my first proposal, which I have limited and modified). --WikiWes77 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The two do seem to have very similar functions. They should, at the very least, have some sort of obvious discriminating factor between them, but I don't see any post on VPA that wouldn't fit on the help desk and vice versa. It might be appropriate to reserve VPA for soliciations to actually do something, the "please do this for me" page, whereas HD could be the "how do I do this" page. I think this is pretty much how they're set up now, but the distinction could be made more apparent. SDY (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Support merging Help Desk and Assistance. In fact I proposed this some time back on the Pump. I think Assistance should redirect to Help desk. Rmhermen (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Opposed (but not nearly as much as to original proposal). Village Pump (assistance) gets many posts from users who don't have a question about using Wikipedia but want assistance with some task. The Help Desk doesn't clearly invite assistance requests and the same is true of WP:VPA for wikipedia use questions. Sure, there's a fair amount of intersection, but I think the separation is useful. There are really a limited number of help forums when you consider the number of users and even active users. Funnelling them all to one place may render that page frantic—edit conflicts, need for sooner archiving, scrolling issues. Both forums are active and serve different crowds. I still don't see the need; what problem this addresses. I'm not the type to just mouth "if it's not broke..."—if there was some articulated and clear benefit from performing the merge, that would be one thing, but as far as I can see this merge is proposed solely because there's some overlap. I don't think that's a good enough reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

VPA only gets like 4-5 edits a day so the problem of added edit conflicts is quite minor. - Icewedge (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some calculations. Based on the 18th through 28th of July, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) averages 7.8 edits per day. Based on the 26th through the 29th, the Help desk averages 20 per day. The advantage for that page is quicker responses. There is also a discussion of a merger/redirect on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (assistance). I plan to work on WP:edit conflicts to improve instructions on how to prevent and deal with edit conflicts, such as copying your text before saving, like I just did. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, scrolling should not be an issue because of the table of contents. --WikiWes77 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're voting, support, but I won't be sad if the merge doesn't happen. I understand some of Fuhghettaboutit's concerns, that Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) is a place more for requests of things on Wikipedia, and I will admit that not being intimately familiar with the VP(A), I don't know all the sorts of requests that are seen there. Do people actually request things to be done there ("will someone make a table for me?"), or do they request information how to do it ("how do I make this table?"). We get plenty of requests here for information on how to do things within Wikipedia articles, and I haven't seen a dearth of people willing to give assistance. If the Helpdesk and VP(A) really do cover many of the same questions/requests, it makes sense to merge them together. For another of Fuhghettaboutit's concerns (not to be just arguing with you - you just gave me some things to consider), it seems like VP(A) is considerably less active than the Help desk, so I am not too worried about the Help desk suddenly doubling in size. That being said, I will again say that I am not so familiar with VP(A). Perhaps we could ask those at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (assistance) for their thoughts? -- Natalya 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done VP(A) notified. - Icewedge (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the difference between "help" and "assistance" is - not surprisingly - not exactly clear, since these are synonyms. I think WP:VPA should become a redirect to WP:HD. The advantages are (a) the help desk is much more active - so there are more editors offering answers, and answers are quicker; (b) editors who help out at VPA are welcome to switch their efforts to the HD; (c) less fragmentation (as in, "I know that question was answered somewhere" and one less place on Wikipedia that new editors have to figure out (as in, "I've just found the Village Pump, and it has five sections - now I have to learn the difference between the five" - where reducing the number, by one, would simplify things). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as an excellent first step in reducing the confusingly large number of project pages we have that serve often indistinguishable functions. (I would try to find ways of eliminating the other village pump pages as well, but that's a different story.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there is also Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, if you're looking for duplication. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - There are way too many help related pages here (WP:HD, WP:VPA, WP:NCHP). Its no wonder there is confusion as to where to ask a question. I think this is a great first step (that is, redirecting WP:VPA to WP:HD). This will allow for faster, more accurate answers because theoretically, more volunteers will be helping on the same page. Scottydude _talk 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - With all of John Broughton's reasons, but specifically with the fact that it's easier and faster if all help questions are asked at the same place. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it ends up coming up - merging with the New Contributors' Help Page has been brought up in the past (possibly multiple times... I'll go digging around for the discussions), but it does have a specified different goal from the Help Desk - to provide a non-intimidating place for new users to ask questions. -- Natalya 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Different purpose, appropriately separate, unlike HD and VP(A). --WikiWes77 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Natalya, do you think new users find HD intimidating? If so, why? (What I personally found intimidating as a new user - and still find annoying - was the vast number of different project/help pages, often serving largely overlapping functions.) --Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever asked new users if they appreciate having the New Contributors' Help Page over the Help Desk (perhaps we should!), but at least thinking about it, all sorts of editors, some well-seasoned here, ask questions at the Help Desk. If someone has a really elementary question when they start out with Wikipedia, she might be nervous to post a question that she knows everyone will think is simple. I do recognize that that is all speculation, but at least thinking about it, I could see the Help Desk as intimidaing to some new users. Perhaps we could try and ask some of those who ask questions at the NCHP, though, to see if a) They knew about the Help Desk, and b) Why they chose to post at the NCHP. -- Natalya 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect one of the more intimidating parts of the Help desk (or any of the help pages) is that a new user must first know some wikitext editing, and follow the talk page guidelines. That is, a new user must know several unobvious things about Wikipedia before being able to ask a question about Wikipedia. As to whether the technical questions on the Help desk would intimidate the new user, we would have to assume the new user bothers to read the Help desk before asking a question. Some new users probably do, to be sure; but we know some others do not, because they make typical new user mistakes such as:

• failing to sign their posts
• listing their e-mail addresses
• failing to search the Help desk archive before asking common questions such as: "How do I add a new entry?"

Wikipedia is a do it yourself project, perhaps one of the most complex ones ever built by humans. Undoubtedly Wikipedia is highly intimidating to lots of people. Historically, most humans have lacked the intelligence and motivation to self-educate, so Wikipedia is (perhaps unintentionally) being selective: we screen out people who don't want to RTFM, and attract the minority who do. If we really wanted to open Wikipedia to the masses, we would need to apply the traditional method of formal education - hold classes in bricks and mortar schools around the world, where students could interact with actual human teachers in real time. Or someday we might set up virtual classrooms using videoconferencing groupware. Most people need a teacher; Wikipedia in its current form is primarily for people who know how to teach themselves, by finding, reading, and following written instructions. --Teratornis (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a tangent from the merger proposal. You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration.--WikiWes77 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is agreeable if the format of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance) is changed to that of the help desk. Keep in mind that this page seems to see far more activity then the village pump page. In addition some of the other offshoots like media help are not going to be merged, correct? The only major problem I see is that this page is currently part of the #wikipedia-en-help project. Its tied to {{helpme}}. If a merge is made, these parts of the page will remain intact, correct? —— nixeagle 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus in favor of merging WP:VPA into WP:HD and making VP(A) a redirect to HD. There are 6 or 7 supports to 1 oppose. Who can do the merge? --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is going to go into the merge? Are we just going to redirect Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) to here, or are there aspects of VP(A) that we want to include at the Help Desk? -- Natalya 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm much more surprised that the merge request wasn't for merging WP:NCHP to here as they serve exactly the same purpose. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. They're for different users. See my above comment about the wrong proposal and Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests#Merger proposal. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it. That doesn't mean I agree with it. To me, the difference is arbitrary at best and academic at worst. In actual practice (which to me is what matters), the users don't segregate themselves, so who are we to try to segregate them? However, I do agree that this is a tangent that is unrelated to this proposal. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put about the segregation. I admit I don't watch these pages, so I don't know much of what actually goes on there, but if those who use them (i.e those seeking help) don't in practice make use of the distinctions we offer them, then the distinctions are unwanted, and we could just merge all three pages into one (Help desk seems the most transparent title to merge under in that case). But if the helpees are observing the logical distinctions, then no problem with keeping the pages separate.--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through the most recents posts at the New Contributors' Help Page and the Help Desk. Looking through the last quarter of posts currently at the NCHP, the majority were from new editors. The questions at the Help Desk were much more widely spread between established editors and new editors - still some new editors, but many more established folks. I think that we do get some new editors at the Help Desk, perhaps because they find it first, but I don't think we get the opposite overlap at the NCHP. Granted, my samples are not at all random, but we should have some evidence before saying that users do or do not segregate themselves. -- Natalya 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very strongly opposed to a merger between the New contributors' help page and this helpdesk. As a volunteer at both, and a regular welcomer, I agree with Natalya and others that they serve different constituencies - most notably, the welcome process and its associated templates specifically direct new users to NCHP, meaning that many a timid, puzzled, brand-new user finds assistance at NCHP via one click from their own talkpage. If we merge, they will be directed to post alongside the questions that arrive at HD, which can be quite complex. They may be deterred from asking, feeling that their question looks too simplistic and silly in comparison. They will also lose their default identity as a new user, which at NCHP affords them a degree of protection from being bitten or belittled in a response (and it does happen). As for the VPA/HD merger proposal, I can see far more in favour. At the very least, if VPA really is meant for "please come and help with this" as opposed to HD's "please answer my question here", the two should be better labelled and signposted. But I'm not sure you'll ever get rid of the overlap. Karenjc 08:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: I am also strongly opposed to a merger of New contributors' help page and this helpdesk for the reasons stated by Karenjc amd Natalya. I do however think that the templates at the top of each need to be changed to have a big, red flashing link to WP:YFA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Header edit request

{{editprotected}} This a request to edit Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Header to accommodate the newly-created {{Adminhelp}}, which puts requests into Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators. See here for context. Mahalo, Skomorokh 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a little more information. Where in the header would it go? What wording?, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Nulled for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done below the {{helpme}} section. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good chaps, although a link to the category might be in order. Thanks, Skomorokh 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and use of Bill Carpenter picture

Bill Carpenter (Army football) picture (Bill&Bill) I won this photo. My late photo took it. It appeared din 1960s in the local paper and has been used by myself on two occasions in other publications. There is no copyright and it can be used freely with credit to my father William G. Wilson (he worked for a number of outlets (TV) as well as NFL Films. What do I need to do to have this photo used. The protocol and method remain unclear and I have been an editor and journalist for 40 years. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmhwilson (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"This page is only for questions about USING Wikipedia".

That's what it says on the top of the page. To me, that means "using" as a reader, trying to find information. But after looking at this page, and Village Pump, and all the other possibilities, I eventually concluded that it was the right place for my question about editing a template. (I considered Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but that seemed to be for problems about the site, things not working, suggestions for improvements, while Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) seemed for less technical questions than mine!) If I'm right, then the page header is confusing! I know it's aimed at fending off people with subject enquiries, but perhaps it should be something more like "This page is only for questions about writing Wikipedia articles" ("writing" being a less technical term than "editing"), if that's what's intended? I can see that you've debated this above, but thought some input from a fairly experienced editor, but newbie to this page, might be useful. Oh, and can anyone help with my template problem?! PamD (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is more than about writing articles— we answer questions about how to edit, content issues, the user interface, templates, userboxes, tables and more. Go ahead and ask your question on the help desk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's there already: WP:HD#Templates - compare character strings? Algebraist 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) What we mean by using Wikipedia, is just about anything related to well... using this site. Maybe what we intend this to exclude would help: it excludes general information questions "how do I obtain a passport from..." "how do I email Angelina Jolie" etc. This is the proper place to ask about your template editing issue. Please ask away on the project page. I can't think of a substitute that would be clearer. The problem with "This page is only for questions about writing Wikipedia articles" is that that is easily interpreted as excluding many peripheral questions about the site itself. In fact, your very question about templates seems to me to be possibly excluded. What about if it was a template for someone's talk page. That is not really about writing articles. You see what I mean?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "writing articles": while it probably conveys the meaning better to beginners, it could be understood too narrowly by those familiar with Wiki-speak! Perhaps "editing Wikipedia" might be the most helpful phrase. To me, "Using Wikipedia" means reading it, looking for information in it, as opposed to contributing to it, which is why I hesitated before coming here with my query: I really thought at first from "only for questions about USING Wikipedia" that I was in the wrong place. PamD (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But "editing Wikipedia" is also too narrow, because that doesn't address questions like "How can I change the way dates appear?" which are also appropriate here. Superm401 - Talk 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) As the previous discussions on this topic show, the instructions at the top of the Help desk are a tradeoff between making them long enough to be complete and unambiguous vs. being short enough to increase the odds that someone might read and understand them. One size cannot possibly fit all. For users like PamD who actually take the time to research the various question pages before asking a question, to determine which page is most appropriate for a given question, lengthier and thus more comprehensive instructions may be useful. We have a page of instructions for Help desk volunteers (Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer), and some time ago I started poking at a page for questioners (Wikipedia:Help desk/How to ask, still in just preliminary shape). If someone wants to expand the How to ask instructions into something more comprehensive, be my guest. When we have something useful, we could add a link to Wikipedia:Help desk/Header. I thought it would be nice to work in some of the information from this classic essay:

• Raymond, Eric S. "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way". www.catb.org. Retrieved 2008-05-09.

but perhaps word it in a more civil way, since Eric S. Raymond has a blunter style than is the norm for Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Template for Disputing Notability

What template would you use to dispute the notability of an article?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for {{notability}}. TN‑X-Man 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And along with the template, what's the format for stating specific rationale as to why you feel an article lacks notability?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. This allows other editors a forum to discuss their concerns and strategies for improvement. TN‑X-Man 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If one uses Twinkle to add a notability tag, it provides various notability options. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why I can't find my question that asked by me at 16 August

✔ Resolved. (In any case, the user said so, so...) 70.187.155.89 (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why I can't find my question "How to measure the distance using laser?"that asked by me at 16 August

--Jiachun Zheng (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you asked it at the Community portal here. You should go to the Science Reference desk. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

--Jiachun Zheng (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reintroduce Nubio?

A while ago the tool Nubio used to be on the Help desk instructions, as a place for people to easily search FAQs. When the toolserver died for a couple of days the link to Nubio was replaced with a google search option. Now, I am biased because I have spent some time inputting FAQs into Nubio, but I just tried to use the Google search ("search the Help desk archive") and it was difficult to use compared to Nubio (mainly I think Nubio is superior in the way it doesn't give >300 results and cleanly displays the title of FAQs). Perhaps we can evaluate Nubio and see if it would be beneficial to the Help desk.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess everybody has their own preferences; I never had much luck with the Nubio search, which was partly why I started the {{Google custom}} template to let me use Google to search the Help desk archive. As far as I'm concerned, more tools are better than fewer, but see the previous debates about how many instructions to pile onto the top of the Help desk itself. The basic tradeoff is: the more instructions we add, the more likely (new) users are to ignore them. I started a page: Wikipedia:Help desk/How to ask to contain extended instructions for the minority of users who would like to learn how to ask questions the right way, and look up their own answers, but I haven't gotten very far with that page yet. Feel free to add more material to it. As far as where to put FAQs, I'd suggest adding them to the WP:FAQ subpage hierarchy, in addition to whatever external tool you like. We have a {{Google custom}} search on Wikipedia's FAQ pages (see the {{WikipediaFAQ}} template). The {{Google custom}} search can often work more precisely on Wikipedia's FAQ pages because our FAQ pages are shorter than the Help desk archives (which are full of redundancy and multiple unrelated usages of individual words). Having all the FAQs documented on Wikipedia itself offers advantages such as easy linking to and from individual FAQ entries, and of course if a FAQ entry is on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia users can easily edit it. Google isn't perfect, of course, but quite a few people are comfortable with it, so that reduces the new tool shock for new users who are already confused about whatever brought them to the Help desk. --Teratornis (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just on the FAQ template search, does that work for you at all. I made a post about it a few days ago.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking, and I'm stunned to report that a whole bunch of searches that I thought were working may have never actually worked at all. It's looking like Google might be effectively blind to at least some page moves on Wikipedia (but I will have to check this with Wikipedians who know more about Google than I do, to rule out the possibility that I am losing my mind). See User:Teratornis/Notes#Wikipedia:FAQ search broke for details. I will also reply on your post to keep that thread logically coherent. Sorry about my slow response; I got Iked for a few days, and after things got back to normal I didn't check back here quickly. --Teratornis (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice

It is now possible to show a custom edit message when the page is opened for editing, thus replacing the current header that shows all the time. See {{editnotice}} for details. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that would work. True the server could remember when I click Edit and notice when I click Save. But it wouldn’t know if I back out of an edit, as I frequently do (either because I abandon the edit or because I was just examining the source). And if I visit other pages in the middle of an edit (as I frequently do), it also wouldn’t know whether I was still intending to save. —teb728 t c 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you encountered a problem with it, or speculating? There are examples at the bottom of that template of some that have already been created. Try some of the related articles. I tried and didn't encounter any problems - but others might. Post what happens if you do hit an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Creating additional "userspace"

Hi, I was wondering how I might go about extending my personal userspace so as to create a page where I can develop new articles before releasing them into the encyclopaedia proper. Thanks in advance. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can edit User:Flaming Ferrari/Sandbox. It's a redlink now but after you save something to it, it should become blue. Then you can link to that page in you user page if you want by putting [[User:Flaming Ferrari/Sandbox]] on your actual user page. For future reference, this is the talk page of the Help desk, not the actual desk. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you're looking for is user subpages. They're very useful- I use them all the time. As a side note, if you ever want to have them deleted, use the {{db-user}} tag. Hope this helps! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I see someone has removed that "Happy Birthday Avril Lavigne" message from this page. It appears in the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page as well. Can someone please take care of it? I tried to find where it is, but couldn't find it even in the transcluded pages. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in the {{Google}} template which I reverted (and gave the vandal a final warning). I don't see on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page - did you try a purge? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's gone. Never thought about purging. Good work, by the way. It was driving me nuts. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the template indefinitely. GlassCobra 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was luck that I found it - I checked the recent changes to templates and spotted an edit to that template by User:Birthdaygirl84 which was a big clue. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It's also in {{Google custom}}. Could someone fix that and track down other similar edits? I'm working on something else at the moment. Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to have been a rash of template vandalism, but I think it's being handled. The relevant thread is at ANI. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Condescending

Can someone explain to me why this is considered by everyone to be condescending? Lately, every time I make a serious comment, I'm chastised for being rude or condescending. If I just crack a joke, I'm told to be serious. I hope Wikipedia isn't becoming a realm where every word of every sentence must be picked over until it is so politically correct that nobody of any persuasion could possibly be offended. -- kainaw™ 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kainaw. There are two or three questions here: was what you said condescending? what is the environment at Wikipedia like? what should we do about it? The answer to the first two questions is that whenever you contribute in an online forum, different people can read precisely the same text and come away with completely different interpretations. I'm sure you didn't mean the post to be condescending. However, it is possible that some readers assumed that you meant to imply some connection between the word "pets" and the original contributor's band.. or even that the contributor him/herself was in some way comparable to a pet. As for the third question: Don't take it personally; let it get under your skin! Read WP:DGAF. :-) In this case, for example, the example you tried to offer referring to pets was not really important to the main point of your post... so you can safely let it go. There's no need to try to explain what you actually meant; but there probably is a need to explain what you didn't mean. You could even offer a mild apology (along the lines of "I'm really sorry we didn't connect somehow, and you felt my remarks were offensive. I promise that I never meant anyhtng like that"). Apologies can be safely offered even in cases where you are certain you did nothing wrong and intended no harm. Apologies are not a sign of weakness, they are a sign of strength. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing condescending about your comment. Perhaps the OP was expecting to be told his own band would be OK, it's just the other non-notables that are a problem. Judging by the tenor of the OP question though, they may have been expecting bad news and feeling resentful that they wouldn't be able to post a music clip. And you were the first to answer.

You may have been a little brusque, i.e. you could have pointed them to the various policy pages, and Tt's advice to try making small edits first is good. A user whose second post is to take a shot at Americans (where did that come from anyway?) probably needs to be a user and watcher for a little longer yet.

In any case, the OP's desire was to make an article for their band. You successfully dissuaded them and regardless of any perception of nastiness, you were far less nasty than the CSD/AFD process. Far, far less. Forget about it and move on. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My user talk page has some comments from people who found some of my Help desk responses unconstructive. As well as some barnstars from people who liked what I wrote. As individuals, no one is perfect, but on a wiki, we are smarter than me - other users are there to clean up our mess. If a baseball metaphor is not too parochial here, nobody hits a home run on every at-bat. Swinging for the fences means a higher strikeout rate. As the above comments state, everybody interprets everything differently (on Wikipedia there is no common sense). While you should not be rending your garments over this, I think it's still worthwhile to determine exactly what the questioner found "condescending" about your remarks. Otherwise you might use the same linguistic patterns on the next questioner. You might leave a note on the questioner's user talk page apologizing for whatever you did, explaining that you honestly don't know exactly how you gave offense, and asking for clarification so you can avoid it the next time. (Anyone who has been married has probably done that a lot.) I don't know whether my windy followup was any better, since the questioner did not share his/her reaction to it, but see how I tried to soften the blow with:

• Sympathy (yeah, those deletionists sure are mean)
• Deflection (in the form of links to policy and guideline pages - which implicitly says hey, don't blame me, I didn't invent all those rules, plus when people read the linked-to pages, they see a general message of bad news which is not singling them out as a direct reply does)
• Humor (funny to me at least, or maybe at most)
• The obligatory message of hope (don't just say no, provide some constructive options, such as learning to edit on existing articles, and trying an alternative outlet)

Again, I have no idea whether the questioner found my response any less condescending than any of the others, but if someone said I was, I'd look into it. Especially if I heard it more than once. However, the bottom line is people come to the Help desk and we help them for free. If we were getting paid to provide technical support, we'd have to bend over backwards to sugar-coat everything. Part of getting free support on "the Interwebs" is that the freeloader might have to absorb a bit of gratuitous mockery on the way, or at the very least hear from people with something like a mild form of Asperger's syndrome - technically astute computer users are not often known for their geniality. Anyone who thinks the Help desk volunteers are rough should read How to ask questions the smart way. This is probably the friendliest online free support venue I've seen. If someone needs friendlier, they're going to have to write a check. --Teratornis (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: the shot at Americans, that probably comes from being a member of an a non-notable band in New Zealand who looks at the English Wikipedia's overwhelming coverage of (successful) American entertainers. The questioner probably does not realize how many "up and coming" American garage bands come here to die - possibly more than the whole population of Kiwis. Wikipedia practices cruelty without regard to race, creed, or national origin. An important thing to keep in mind when answering questions on the Help desk is the sheer bewilderment that grips so many people who find their way there. They are at a huge disadvantage relative to those of us with more experience and more hours put into RTFM. Not many people have the sangfroid necessary for dealing with the resulting sense of inferiority, and therefore some people come in with a heightened tendency to interpret communication in the most negative possible way (as a form of ego defense). Struggling musicians can be prone to inferiority complexes, particularly if they continually listen to friends and family asking when they will get real jobs. --Teratornis (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention we're a Canadian outfit anyway! And all the best editors are Canucks too. :) Franamax (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Never let it be said that Wikipedia discriminates. We shoot down everyone's dreams equally, without any bias at all. Except when it comes to rude idiots who can't take the time to read the <insert choice word here> manual when pointed to it. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I officially nominate that as the Help Desk slogan: "Where Dreams Come to Die". Has a nice, cheerful ring to it. Regardless, I found your response to be appropriate to the question and did not think it condescending when I read it. TN‑X-Man 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A note on subjectivity: everyone has their own subjective emotional reaction to a given statement. A very large factor is whether the statement applies unflatteringly to oneself. For example, When Harry Met Sally...#Deli scene says:

• The film may be best known for a scene featuring the two title characters having lunch at Katz's Deli in Manhattan. They are arguing about a man's ability to recognize when a woman is faking an orgasm. ... Reiner recalls that at a test screening, all of the women in the audience laughing while all of the men were silent.

Obviously, the women were all laughing because they understood how easy it is for a woman to fake an orgasm; all the men were silent because they all perceived their inability to distinguish a woman's fake orgasm to be a direct threat to their sexual prowess and masculinity, triggering the anxiety that our ancestors evolved over the past billion years in their continuous struggle to survive and reproduce. As another example, consider joking about someone's weight. A person who feels self-conscious about her weight is less likely to find "fat jokes" funny. It's easy for me not to feel condescended to when I see someone else's MySpace page being (sort of) compared to a pet page, because it's not my ox getting gored. I'm not the aspiring musician who is staking his sense of worth on the very long shot of making it in the hyper-competitive world of pop music. The comment is no direct reminder of my low probability of success. I'm not being personally threatened, so it's no problem for me. But then again, neither was I bothered by the response of Bloodbomb (so he slagged off Americans a bit - at least he didn't call us the Great Satan). kainaw, on the other hand, did seem to be bothered by having his well-intentioned attempt to help a stranger called "condescending." All I'm saying is, if it bothers a person to be called "condescending," then it makes sense to look into it. There are ways of talking to strangers that are less likely to be perceived as "condescending" by them. It's less relevant for third parties to weigh in with their own subjective perceptions of whether something was condescending (as if some absolute emotional meaning attaches to any particular character string), because they aren't the ones who made the comment that bothered kainaw. I interpreted kainaw's question as "Why did I bother this person, and what can I do to avoid bothering this kind of person in the future?" The relevant question is not whether someone should feel condescended to, but whether there are ways of addressing that type of person which are less likely to give offense. Notice that kainaw said, perhaps somewhat hyperbolically:

• "Lately, every time I make a serious comment, I'm chastised for being rude or condescending."

Getting this sort of negative feedback has predisposed kainaw to be sensitive to further instances of it, just as Bloodbomb's tough going in the world of pop music has probably sensitized him to anything remotely construable as a dis. It's like a salesman who keeps getting brushed off by the marks. The question is not whether the product is good or bad in an absolute sense, the only question that matters is what do those people dislike about the pitch? If we don't see anything immediately wrong with the product, we have to look deeper in their psychology. When it comes to dealing with other people and their perplexing emotions, a constructive approach is to say the customer is always right. What that really means is, we can't easily change other people, but we can change our approach. --Teratornis (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kainaw, read your link and have no problem with it. Seems another way to say that old 'every man and his dog' when it comes to YouTube, that vast reservoir of non-notability. Time for me to enjoy Walter Benjamin on banality of the media once again. Thank you, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to ensure that everyone here knows that I've read all these great comments and appreciate them. I'll try to be less condescending, but I would still like to reserve the right to crack minor, non-offensive jokes at common newbie mistakes. I know - don't bite the newbies. I won't bite. I'll just nibble. -- kainaw™ 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard about support groups for technical support representatives, where they swap their "dumbest customer" stories. Such as the customer who calls about their computer not working. The support rep runs through the standard troubleshooting tree, which begins by asking the customer whether the computer is switched on, whereupon the customer says "I can't tell, because it's dark in here" (seems the customer experienced a power cut, and called for support because the phone was still working). Sometimes you need that outlet, so you can stay in character while dealing with the customer. You might try starting a blog under a different jokey username where you highlight the stupidest questions on the Wikipedia Help desk. Then you can have your emotional release without wounding anyone's self-esteem, unless they are smart enough to connect the dots to your blog. In which case their self-esteem might not be at risk. Incidentally, every type of professional who deals with the general public has to practice the same kind of dualism with the customer, something to keep in mind when you talk to your physician, attorney, plumber, etc. You can't really be sure when they are leveling with you, or when they are only telling you as much of the truth as they think you can handle. Most of us are relatively stupid about a lot more things than we are relatively smart about. That's something to reflect on when a new user displays some sort of ignorance on the Help desk. Imagine all the equally ignorant things we do every day that we aren't aware of. --Teratornis (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the genres?

On just about all the music pages for bands and albums the genre part on the information secton's been removed. It's very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkymonks11 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus to remove them from the infobox template. They're gone forever. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, conversation about the matter is ongoing. All Wikipedians are welcome to contribute at the page linked by PrimeHunter below. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's no good, thanks anyways though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkymonks11 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There were many conflicts about which genre to state. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The genre parameter in many music infoboxes was disabled as an expedient; this was such a source of contention that at many music-related articles there was nothing productive save months of edit wars. Good work could not be done on the articles because they were swamped by people reverting back and forth over the issue. Even those that support its removal have noted that it is a controversial move, and it is still under heavy discussion, but it has been somewhat effective at stopping the lameness. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Help

I really need help. I want to upload pictures of some bridges in Minnesota and a site I know has given me permission to use them, and they are free for people to have and look at. So why was trhe image I uploaded deleted when I stated this?

---Shadow (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough to have permission to upload an image to Wikipedia. The reason is that Wikipedia allows others to copy all images which have been uploaded to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia cannot allow that if the image owner has only allowed the image to be uploaded to Wikipedia itself. You apparently selected a license which caused the message at Template:Permission from license selector to be put on the image page before it was deleted. See that message. You must select a license that allows others to copy the image from Wikipedia, but only if the owner of the image has actually given permission for that. You can direct further questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what would be a good selection to pick if it is allowed to be uses off of Wikipedia? ---Shadow (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required from a third party and how to handle it. —teb728 t c 06:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you try to get permission from copyright holders, start by picking the low-hanging fruit, in this case that would be looking for images that the authors have already licensed for free re-use. I recently wrote a template {{Flickr free}} that searches Flickr for photos under free licenses making them suitable for uploading to Commons:

• Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Minnesota bridge under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa

Those two searches find hundreds of photos suitable for uploading to Commons, although before uploading them you should check to make sure no one else has already uploaded them. I'll leave more information on your talk page. --Teratornis (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Teratornis, that's a great template - any chance that it can be converted into a toolbox script? – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet done anything with toolbox scripts so I have no idea. If a toolbox script can generate two external links (or alternatively, if you can live with having two separate toolbox scripts, one to search for free photos under each of the two acceptable licenses), then I wouldn't see a problem. All the script has to do is substitute the user's search keywords into the search URLs, URL-encoding the spaces and funny characters as usual. I'm slightly unsatisfied with the function of {{Flickr free}} in its current condition because I could not find a way to cram searches for photos under both of the free licenses into one URL. I could only see how to search for photos under one license at a time. (I guess I could pose a question on the Reference desk to see if anyone knows about advanced Flickr search features; my half-hearted attempt to find clues in the Flickr online help only further convinced me of my slogan, "Everything sucks compared to Wikipedia".) Needing to generate two URLs to search for all the free photos forced me to format the text that the template displays in an inelegant hard-coded kind of way. Anyway, I wrote the script because I got tired of manually editing ugly long URLs to generate searches on my notes pages, and I couldn't make any sense of the Free Image Search Tool, which doesn't seem to work like any search tool I have ever used before. I'm finding lots of interesting photos on Flickr for the articles I'm focusing on now (mostly in the area of Wind power). Flickr seems to have a lot more photos than Commons does, at least in the subject areas I've checked, which says quite a lot since Commons is no slouch when it comes to content. The free photos on Flickr certainly seem to represent the low-hanging fruit, compared to beating one's head against the wall trying to get permission to use non-free photos. I think it's best to pick the low-hanging fruit for Wikipedia first, and then by the time all of it is gone, maybe the higher-hanging fruit will have become easier because we will have better tools. Until we run out of easy and fun things to do, it doesn't make much sense to attack the difficult and not-fun things. --Teratornis (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shadow, if you genuinely do have permission from a website to make their images freely available for all, you need to work with them to verify the free image under the WP:OTRS system. See WP:Requesting_copyright_permission for some details. Basically, you upload the image with the {{OTRS pending}} template and they contact OTRS and convince OTRS that they are who they say they are, are the owners of the image, and wish to freely license it for use under GFDL (or maybe CC-BY-SA). An OTRS rep then adds the {{PermissionOTRS}} template with a ticket number and Bob's-yer-uncle. The website needs to understand what they're doing when they give the permissions, but the OTRS people can help with that. Also, the image goes to Commons, where it is available to all WMF sites.

This is quite different than the comments above about Flickr, which has a different process to verify that the image has been freely licensed. In any case, you can always try an email to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" to find out more. Franamax (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Text indented

All the text from here seems to be indented. I guess it's probably something to do with the code that's in the section above it. Can someone fix it? Chamal ^talk 11:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This seemed to fix it. Hope you don't mind, Kainaw. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

edit notice take 2

I was thinking about adding the big warning box as an edit notice to the page. Since this is a high profile page, I figured I should give a chance for objections first before I do so. Edit notices are a recent addition to the project software, and allow for page-specific notices to be crafted. For details, see here. And to see one in action, check out Cuteness, and click edit. The edit notices these are the two boxes that appear above the edit box.

In the specific case of the current page, I was looking at the nice big warning box at the top of the page. The entire box, starting with "This page is only for questions". I was thinking that this notice would be useful to be visible as an edit notice, just above the edit box for this page, in addition to it's current spot on the page itself.

Baring any opposition, I'll do this in a couple of days from now. If there is opposition... well, I'll deal with that if/when it happens. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this was discussed breifly a couple of months back (several sections above here). Changing my section header to not conflict. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like this idea. Reinforces the point, as it were. TN‑X-Man 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Any more comments for, and especially against, this move are still welcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And for reference for any admins wanting to edit the thing, it's at MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Help desk. MediaWiki pages are only editable by admins, though, as they effect the opperation of the wiki. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

i don't have any objections to the idea, but in my opinion the box you've installed is too big. can we try a smaller font size, with less space between lines, please and thank you? Sssoul (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The first version of it was an exact cut&paste of the version that exists at the top of the page itself. Anyway, I've shrunk the font, and removed one extra blank line from a spot that used 3 blank lines between the text lines. It's now down to two blank lines between each section. I don't really want to go an narrower. I previewed with only one blank line between each section, and IMHO the text of the different sections was getting too close together, too crowded for a series of separate warning messages. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Using {{editnotice}}:

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"The first version of it was an exact cut&paste of the version that exists at the top of the page itself." i realize that, and it's too big for the edit box. Gadget850's more "compact" version seems better. thanks Sssoul (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Update made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW: the vde links work on the live version, so concerned admins can easily change it without trying to figure out where the darn thing is. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

Just an FYI to be used to help people seeking sources:

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Johns

An update to your page on singer Michael Johns.

He was a guest on the "David Foster and Friends" PBS Special, currently airing on PBS, taped May 23, 2008 at the Mandalay in Las Vegas where he brought down the house with his rendition of David Foster's "Man In Motion". This concert is also available on a Warner Bros./Reprise CD/DVD 2-disk set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmensor (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the message at the top of this page: “This is a talk page for discussing the WP:Help Desk. Do not ask questions here, unless they are about the Help Desk itself.” If you had posted at the Help Desk itself, someone would have told you you could post your update to Michael Johns (singer) yourself. But I see you have found how to do that. —teb728 t c 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as anger management without getting angry. How to be a good Wikipedian Editor and not a Wikipedian protestor

Replace 2007/2006/2005 arguments with something to the form of Globalization. Hard Reset Everything instead of rationalizing why you want to edit it on the talk page. Assume god faith of other editors but don't hesitate. Edit wikipedia articles to show that they can be edited. Obama's presidency will change believes not grudges between faiths.

{{Globalizecountry|Modern Medicine}} 	
{{Globalize|Truth}}
'''{{Globalize}}'''
{{Globalize|NonUSCountries}}
{{Globalize|Christian Ideals}}
{{Globalize|Modern World}}
{{Globalize|anthropology}}

And, citation needed.

Kudos goes to the Talk page for Demon, psychiatry, and XKCD http://xkcd.com/501/ for bringing logic to the door and not the opposite way around. Conflict seeking disorders are amazing hard to have, I was originally finding that page first. but wanted to know how to spell Grecian demons. I hate English spelling, having studying Latin enough to hate how Britian and Webster and Modern Vocabularies fucked it up. Nobodymk2 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to add the one leading space character that would format your nowiki block the way you probably intended. I recognize some of the individual words and phrases but I have no idea what you're getting at. This page is for discussing improvements to the Help desk. If you have a content dispute or something similar, see the instructions under WP:EIW#Dispute. If you're looking for anger management therapy, I suggest taking a break from editing articles, and instead just answer questions on the Help desk, the Reference desk, and so on. Even a person with no social skills like me can do that without usually getting in too many fights. Although sometimes one does have to bite one's tongue a bit. See Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer for more about that. --Teratornis (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

archiving

Sorry for the lack of HD archiving; I'm working on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Help desk templates navbox}}

I recently created a horizontal navbox template for the most commonly used Help desk reply templates. You will find it at {{Help desk templates navbox}}. It was designed as an aide memoire to be transcluded to a user space page but I am sure it can be used elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Great work Ukexpat. This will certainly be helpful. Chamal ^talk 05:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline in number of Help desk questions

• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007 January 3 - 38 questions
• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008 January 3 - 34 questions
• Wikipedia:Help_desk#January 3 - 10 questions

Yes, I know comparing weekly totals would be more accurate, but traffic seems to have declined on the Help desk. Could it be that some people actually are reading the instruction to read the FAQ and search the Help desk archive before asking? Or is some question traffic diverting to other help pages for some reason? --Teratornis (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a weekday vs weekend phenomenon. What are the stats for help desk questions on weekdays vs weekends? – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First weekend in January, 2007-2009:

$ cal 1 2007
    January 2007
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1  2  3  4  5  6
 7  8  9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007 January 6 - 24 questions
• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007 January 7 - 35 questions

$ cal 1 2008                                                                                       
    January 2008
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
       1  2  3  4  5
 6  7  8  9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008 January 5 - 18 questions
• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008 January 6 - 25 questions

$ cal 1 2009
    January 2009
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
             1  2  3
 4  5  6  7  8  9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

• Wikipedia:Help_desk#January 3 - 10 questions
• Wikipedia:Help_desk#January 4 - 8 questions

--Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had some way to count the number of users who come to the Help desk with a question, but are able to look up their own answer, either with our {{Google help desk}} link, or one of the other resources we provide. Unfortunately, we can only count the number of questions that appear on the Help desk. We would expect, in the absence of any improvements to our user interface, that the number of questions should increase as the overall traffic on Wikipedia increases. Wikipedia is still growing, so the apparent drop in Help desk questions seems particularly notable. I suspect the {{Google help desk}} link accounts for some of the reduction in redundant questions, because I've used that search many times when looking up answers to questions on the Help desk, and I know it works on a pretty large fraction of typical questions. However, we don't have any data to indicate when it works, because users who answer their own questions aren't going to tell us about it. Ultimately, our goal on the Help desk should be to work ourselves out of a job. Once we have documented the answers to all the repetitive questions, and we have built efficient usable tools for looking up the answers, most users should be able to look up the answers without having to bother a human. --Teratornis (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)