Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 1

Tag use.

Is it acceptable to use the

Resolved

tag on requests where appropriate? --Aarktica 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you're sure that the situation really is resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the timely reply. --Aarktica 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving unresolved requests.

Is it a good idea to archive requests which have yet to be definitively resolved? How do we measure the impact of our efforts? --Aarktica 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we can mark things resolved if no further action was requested, if the original problem brought by the requester was solved, or if the requester said "thanks, it's done". On the other hand, I'd like to propose a guideline for archiving -- I think we should archive discussions after they've been marked "resolved" or "stale" for 2-3 days, or 2-3 days after the last message posted if any were added after the "resolved" or "stale" tags were added. --Deryck C. 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposed change in protocol. --Aarktica 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So can you rewrite this and put it on the top of the requests page as a notice? --Deryck C. 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Aarktica 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Methods.

Which archiving methods are to be used for resolved/stale requests? --Aarktica 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have two options: We could leave marked posts for a set number of days from the original date of posting - say, five days? - given the relatively low traffic. Otherwise, it might look under utilised, which can discourage new editors from using it. Move any that are resolved or stale after five days, leaving others in place. The other option is to archive them a set number of days after being marked, but that would entail checking the date of the marking unless we leave a timestamp next to each marking (although I noticed that you tend to do this anyway - very good idea!) Either option may occasionally result in one or two questions being archived out of their original order, but this should not happen very often with a five day gap (or similar duration) and should not present a major issue. Unless it presents unforeseen complications, I (just about) favour the latter method, but I'm happy either way. Adrian M. H. 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of the techniques mentioned in WP:ARCHIVE should we use toward this effort? Options available include cut/paste, move, and perma-link. --Aarktica 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have experience of "cut and paste". Adrian M. H. 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste it is; I will start moving tagged requests ASAP. The clutter could discourage others from seeking assistance. --Aarktica 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave things tagged for at least a day before archiving. --Deryck C. 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the note to assitants on WP:EAR: "A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days." J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Aarktica added that as part of the improvements that he made as a result of this discussion. Adrian M. H. 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't realize how old the timestamps are in this thread. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamlist

A link on the requests page, though I don't know which, is blocked by the spamlist. Therefore, the requests page currently cannot be saved in full-page form. Editors please use section edit. Of course, we hope somebody can find out the culprit and remove that link soon. --Deryck C. 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently archiving is done thread-by-thread. I hope the situation will improve soon. --Deryck C. 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! I got the culprit. --Deryck C. 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Endless lists of WP Guidelines

Wikipedia guidelines are there to help us not fall foul of conflict edits. Guidelines have been constructed over time to offer editors a guide to avoiding potential problems. Unlike policy they are open to interpretation and sometimes don't cover the problem at hand.

[[WP]] offer editors a good shorthand way of directing other editors to a problem with their edits. However, with Ea/R we are dealing with editors who probably haven't had the time to study the guidelines and we seem to be refering them to the top of a page when the passage they need is a sentence long buried deep in the page.

Would it not be more helpful (as assistants) to quote the sentence and then refer them? A paragraph of 4 WP guideline links without an expaination is just us being lazy. I fall into the habit too and but some of the editors seem to explain policy with a simple explaination and a wikilink.

Ea/R is possibly the first port of call of some editors (certainly after a frustrating silence at Village Pump) and quite often the only editors who see all sides of the problem. Fobbing them off with a vague reference probably is unhelpful and isn't why we are here. Mike33 - t@lk 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I try to provide a brief nutshell explanation or at least put it in context, and I hope I succeed in doing that. You can tell me if I don't! I appreciate your point. But... I hope that whenever any editor is given a link to any WP advice page, they actually take the time to read it in full. If they do that but still don't understand it, they can ask for further clarification. Everyone should read them, with no exceptions. I periodically force myself to do the fairly boring task of re-reading Ps and Gs with which I had originally become familiar months ago, partly to refresh my fading memory and partly because some of the content is likely to have been altered. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be sure to provide more specific information when responding to requests. Fortunately, some of pages seem to have shortcuts sprinkled throughout (a la WP:EA#EXPECT), which might be more appropriate for emphasis. --Aarktica 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am probably more culpable of fobbing off editors than either of you. It is my new goal not too ;-) Aarktica has a really great point that pinpoints one of the problems and that is directing them to the relevent explaination. When I get verbose I end up going far off subject trying to explain, but if we do pinpoint the real pearl we can be really helpful. The problem that most regular editors is we tend to be jack of all trades - I couldn't answer half of the problems with anything useful or helpful if I spent a two-week crash course.

What we do here is to the best of our knowledge directing editors. As I said above we are often the first contact they have with editors who can fix or explain or direct them. Its probably one of the most useful parts of wikipedia.

Back to Adrian, I don't think that every editor should know every guideline. (Try a Random game, Random, wiki the first wikilink and then the next and see how many you can find that don't meet guidelines). There are great useful articles that would fail guidlines everytime. If we can advise and help out on their articles that is so much better. Mike33 - t@lk 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that new editors should be familiar with every P and G; merely that they should take the time and make the effort to read as many of them as they possibly can and become familiar with the most commonly used Ps and Gs over the course of time. I appreciate that it is a progressive and evolutionary process. I find this common habit of turning up and immediately creating a new article without first reading anything (just check a few first edits against the account creation log) to be indicative of impatience, even a blase attitude to Wikipedia, and this is a perpetual pity. There was a month's gap between the creation of my account and the date of my first article, which was the creation of Jamie Green. That approach worked well and has influenced my opinion of how WP is best approached initially. I have no answer for how new editors may be encouraged to take this more measured and proactive approach, although I occasionally encounter editors who have done so. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When I created my first article it was because it wasn't there. Little Mikey it was written so badly, I cringe now. It was quickly wikied by an editor who gave me a welcome. He explained the things wrong with my article and G posted some {{fact}} later that afternoon. For most editors who contribute on a few articles, I don't think it is important to know more than the basics. I don't think we should push it. Ea/R is not a mentoring service but it certainly shouldn't be a flea in your EAR. Mike33 - t@lk 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they don't need to know eveything by any stretch – and I have yet to encounter an editor who does. As I say, it's a gradual process, but we have to show some responsibility towards the project by having a willingness to learn when we encounter something that we either should know or now need to know because of an emerging scenario (for me, that is still ongoing). I agree with you that we should all remember to give a clear "nutshell" of what we are citing, but hopefully, newer editors won't always take our word as gospel and will check it. Adrian M. H. 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While we should give assistees a basic "nutshell" summary of what we're trying to say, I think it will be of better use to them down the road if we provide the actual article. Lots of guidelines also have a "This Page in a nutshell" box at the top that basically summarizes the point of the article. But I do agree that we should do our best to, where applicable, provide a basic summary of our point, instead of beating them with policies. But If I see something that vios something like WP:COI, I'll refer them to the article. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

An FAQ?

We often have questions that relate directly to external links, deleted articles, reverted edits, and difficulties in disputes. I was considering whether some form of FAQ sub-page would benefit the editors who come here for help and those of us who respond (we can use it as a reference). Something that gives some good, stock advice of which editors can make use, particularly if they are not too sure about whether to post a question. The Wikipedia:FAQ doesn't meet our needs as it is too pithy. Adrian M. H. 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We should make it more pointed rather than have an example question be "I want to know if my external link is acceptable. Where can I read up on this?" We just point it to WP:EL. Things should be more in depth, like "Why is my page up for deletion?" You know, things we have to put more in to than just giving a policy page and a nutshell. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Adrian M. H. 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have got as far as created a header at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/FAQ, our new FAQ page, so anyone who is up for helping me to add content, please join in! Adrian M. H. 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto Archive

Hey, I saw an edit summary that said Aarktica was archiving some stuff. Recently, I had User:MiszaBot archive my talk page automatically. MiszaBot III is for user talk pages, but MiszaBot II archives wikipedia and wikipedia talk pages. Should we get this for EAR? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Shadowbot3 works better, I reckon. I have used MB2 before, but wasn't keen. But neither would work unless they can be configured to suit our archival patterns; ie, look for a {{resolved}} or {{stale}} tag of two days old or more. Might be possible; I'll have a word with their creators tomorrow. Adrian M. H. 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ten days of staleness

I've seen someone marking things as stale before the ten-day threshold. Maybe we should officially change the threshold to maybe 5 days. Ten days seems like a long time. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's far too long and I have been meaning to raise the same point. I usually use it after about eight days, but I would prefer four or five. Adrian M. H. 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To accommodate requests from the occasional weekender, I would suggest a time window of six to eight days. --Aarktica 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems generous, but I'll go along with that as a middle ground. It's just that I'm one of those wikiholic types who, if I haven't edited for more than a few hours, you can assume that something terrible has happened. After about three or four days, I tend to assume that they're not coming back! Adrian M. H. 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally. Homeschooling has allowed me to be on wikipedia almost constantly! I say after 3-5 days of staleness, we can assume that the discussion has resolved itself. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we say 5 days as an absolute minimum, seven preferred, with room for using our judgment. Sometimes, when looking at contribs and article history, a fairly clear picture emerges, which can be an indicator in either direction. Adrian M. H. 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. _{(P.S. Thanks for participating at my RfA)} --Aarktica 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

_{What can I say? I think you deserved the mop :)} J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I wanted to wait for Aarktica's view first, and as we're all happy, we'll say five to seven days, with room for leaving it longer when deemed necessary. I have shied away from an RFA; it should stand for Really Frickin' Awkward. I participated in the recent RFC discussion, as J-Stan did too, but I don't envisage anything positive coming out of it. Adrian M. H. 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think much will change. It doesn't really seem necessary. I'm actually currently under admin coaching. We'll see what comes of it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What are we?

Ok, so it seems that this page is being used for dispute resolution quite often. I just wanted clarity on whether to approach a dispute as something that should be dealt with here, or whether to refer it to dispute resolution. Just further clarity, what is the exact purpose of EAR? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We should not simply turn them towards DR. We should actively advise them about how to approach contact with other editors and how to settle things in the right way, remembering that they might also have policy/guidelines on their side (or against them) of which they are not aware. If an editor needs assistance with something, and we can help, then we should. We can always refer them elsewhere for issues or questions that we cannot answer. Adrian M. H. 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. We advise them on how to deal with a dispute, and DR actually resolves disputes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

No worries, J! Adrian M. H. 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In many cases (at least recently) the first thing to tell editors is discuss the problem at the article's talk page. It's surprising how few do that before starting DR. The second thing to tell them when they ask "who did that and why" is to click the article's History tab, find the editor who did it, then ask that editor "why?". If people would just look at the History, and start a discussion with other users on the Talk page, they wouldn't be coming here or to other places for DR. Sbowers3 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

UTC clock

Would other Assistants find it helpful when archiving to have a UTC clock? What I usually find myself doing is typing five tildes, which brings up the current date and time, but I was wondering if using a real-time clock would help. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, J-Stan. If, by real-time clock, you mean those time expressions that some editors place on their user pages, those are dependent upon an empty cache to display accurately. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably just as easy to link here, which is not dependent upon caching (or a lack thereof). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I always had this problem too; not knowing the UTC time and all. I know a tiny bit of javascript, so I wrote this up over the summer: User:Arichnad/monobook.js (it will work even with caching and it even updates). You put it in your own subpage under User:USERNAME/monobook.js and it should display the UTC day and UTC time just to the right of the "log out" link. If anyone decides to use it, and it doesn't work, let me know. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I just input "importScript('User:Arichnad/monobook.js');" to my js file, and it worked. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't know about importScript. Can you change it to "importScript('User:Arichnad/utc clock.js'); //[[User:Arichnad/utc clock.js]]"? Thanks. That way I can change my monobook.js without affecting you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was almost going to ask you not to install Twinkle or something else so that I wouldn't get messed up :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EW upgraded to policy status

Just a quick note to assistants about the recent upgrade to the status of Wikipedia:Edit war. It looks like consensus is a little bit weak, so it might not stick long-term, but I think it's worth noting changes like this whenever they take place. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with resolved/stale templates

I just noticed that an editor ran into the minor syntax issue with these templates: If anyone else finds that their signature does not display correctly, it can be avoided by adding 1= between the pipe and the tildes. {{resolved|1=~~~~}} Adrian M. H. 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that out on the template's discussion page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

specialised archiving bot?

A specialised archiving bot would be a great thing. It could scan the page for section tagged as resolved / stale for 7 days without follow-ups and then auto-archive those sections. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to write a bot myself, so I filed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:51, December 2, 2007

Actually, only stale would be better, as it really takes humans to resolve issues. Just make note of the two-day period between tagging and archival. If it doesn't go through, we should at least write some sort of script. Also, nice to see you getting more active here :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean the bot should tag the sections itself, only archive them after they have been tagged for a while. Maybe 2-3 days for resolved, 5 days for stale. (ignore: 2 days is just fine, for both) And thanks! I dorftrottel I talk I 23:29, December 2, 2007

I see what you're saying. I read it as it would tag conversations as resolved or stale after 7 days, and then archive them. And you're welcome! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice to creators/advocates of deleted articles

Just a quick note to those of us offering advice to editors who come to this page after an article they created or have an interest in is deleted.

While we don't want to give people false hope, it's important for us (particularly but not exclusively those of us who aren't admins, therefore can't see the deleted content) to not be too negative when giving these folks advice; deletion review exists for a reason - namely that sometimes worthy articles are deleted in error, and if an editor comes here looking for help or advice we don't want to make it seem like they don't have a hope.

Yes, the vast majority of people who come here are beating a dead horse, but nevertheless we don't want to draw a conclusion about a topic without thoroughly investigating it, and we also should always suggest the option of deletion review. Anchoress (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I have put in a new archive box {{Editor assistance archives}}, based on the Admin Noticeboard archives. I thought it might be helpful as our archives grow, since the page seems to be pretty busy lately. Feel free to revert if you would rather go back to the standard archive box. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It took me a whole 30 seconds to figure out that this was the talk page. I saw that I was on the "Editor assistance/Requests" page, but the conversations were all old. "Why the heck is there a conversation from April that hasn't been archived?" I asked myself. ...Anyways. Yes, the new template looks great. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing a Tag

Hello, I was advised by an editor to check here to see if it is OK to remove a tag from an article I wrote (good to have another party make the decision!). The editor seemed to think it was ok to remove, but wanted another opinion, thus I am checking here. Backgroud is on my talk page. If additional work is needed, I would really appreciate an example of a good, solid company article that I can look at (I've looked at a lot of company articles that really aren't very good - no citations, not well written, etc. I've tried to work on this article to make it objective but let me know if it still needs improvement). Thanks! Llcavall (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not acceptable to remove a tag you wrote just because you don't think it needs it. In this case, there was adequate discussion, plus a second opinion. If others agree that the problem brought up by the tag have been addressed, you can remove a tag. Side point: for future notice, please use the project page, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This page is for discussing improvements we can make with regards to that page, not for addressing the actual assistance requests. But we're glad to help wherever :) Justin^(c)_(u) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(moving to project page for further discussion.) Sbowers3 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors looking for dispute resolution, more eyes on an article

It seems like a lot of editors come here looking for help with articles that are being WP:OWNed, etc. I often paste links to the three locations I know about that may be helpful, 1) Third opinion; 2) Request for comment; and 3) Any associated WikiProject, but I was thinking it might be good to create a template that would say the same thing - to make answering such queries shorter. I don't know how to make templates, and I also don't know if there are other locations on WP that should be included in the suggestion. Any help? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archiving?

I think we should switch to letting MiszaBot auto-archive threads seven days after going stale. The following config feels about right:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 384
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader={{archive}}
}}

The whole thread-marking is another thing I believe is outdated. It's simply too tedious. Dorftrottel (bait) 16:31, March 15, 2008

I think thread marking is necessary, in order to help editors who want to help querents save time. It's voluntary, so only people who want to do something 'tedious' need do so. I was actually going to suggest an 'unanswered' template, to flag queries that have no replies after a certain period of time. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the templates helped out a lot when I was active here. And the unanswered template would be the same as the "Stale" template. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be? I thought stale was for a thread with no new activity for a certain period of time. 'Unanswered' would be for a question that had had no responses. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archived

I have tagged everything that appears to be resolved or sufficiently stale. Since much of it is from as much as a month ago, I will archive all the tagged threads tomorrow if no one objects, just to get the page back up to date. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplifying proposal

Here is an idea I had--why not, when we tag a request "stale" or "resolved," add "(stale)" or "(resolved)" to the heading title for the section? That way, we can look at the TOC and quickly see if there are any new requests or if they are all over. Let me know what you think. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see it as helpful. The TOC need not be further enlightened with extra elements surely. What is needed at the moment is a "drive" to get editors who have failed WP:RFA to work on this project. (a) It gives them experience of problems (b) It will actually let them see many sides of problems they probably haven't encountered before (c) It will hopefully get a huge backlog down 6-10 days is a joke with difficult problems, with at the most 10 editors replying a week with over 70 editors listed as watchers?

EAR is probably the first encounter editors have with ideas or a non-partisan view. It is possibly the first chance editors have where policy and guidelines are explained in a way they can understand.

My choice is to invite failed Rfa candidates to help out here, clear the backlog and leave thread heading alone. -- BpEps - t@lk 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you modify the header of a section at the time that it's resolved, that means that old section links saved in other discussions (or in edit and contribution histories) stop working. That alone I think is a good enough reason not to do it. (The WP:AN/3RR noticeboard has this problem, and I hope they eventually fix it). EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, good points, guys; I understand completely. Thanks for considering anyway! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Change from User Status please?

My page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erastes

Now I've had three novels, and over 20 short stories published, and have sold my fourth novel to Perseus Books - may I please have my own page as do other novelists who write the same genre such as Steve Berman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Berman

Erastes (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you show me some multiple reliable, third-party sources that are non-trivial I'll take a looksee and think about it. From the sounds of it, however, you don't meet our notability guideline, sorry. -- Naerii 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. What about my work is trivial? I have many non-vanity publishing credits. I don't self publish. I've never published with a vanity press, ever. I have published short stories with Alyson Books (many times) Cleis Press, MEN Magazine. PD Publishing, Linden Bay Romance are bona fide print publishers. Standish has been in the gay bestseller lists on Amazon since publication. Perseus Books is a multi-national mainstream publisher who are going to be putting my books into bookstores all over the world. What sources do you need? Should I get Perseus to send you an email? Do you want a copy of my contract?

Erastes (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not need to see anything of that sort. What we are looking for is reliable, third-party sources (e.g., newspaper, magazine articles, substantial reviews, etc) through which others (i.e., not you or your publisher) attest to your notability. Follow this link and this link to read some about what we mean on wikipedia by reliable sources and notability. It also wouldn't hurt to read up on our thoughts on conflicts of interest and auto-biographical articles. You are, I believe, following the right path by not creating the article yourself. Generally, when thinking about one's own place on wikipedia, a good rule of thumb is that if you (or any individual) is notable, chances are that someone (other than yourself, the publisher, or a pr person) would create the article without any encouragement from you - otherwise this project ceases to be an encyclopedia and becomes a venue for self-promotion and advertising. Pastordavid (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Banner ad?

For those of you who like banner ads (WP:BANNER), I created one for EAR. Check it out and let me know if you have any complaints before I include it in the banner template. Or let me know it you think it sucks that EAR has a banner ad. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite like it although a bit of color wouldn't go amiss. It seems to sum up the vast majority of why editors come here. I'd hate to see it on Jimbo's page though. Can you just imagine the backlog after that? -- EhsanQ (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed Requests

I have broadband but the page takes ages to load and it is really difficult to edit. Wikipedia pages over 100kb rule out usability and access. If editors are going to mark issues as definitely resolved can they not be archived a day or two after? -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Instructions for marking a thread resolved or stale are at the top of the page. When using the templates {{resolved}}, {{stale}} or {{stuck}}, please add your signature so that a clear date is on there. I will do an archive run today. Pastordavid (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The syntax for the templates (resolved, stuck, stale) is

 {{resolved|1=Comment if nexessary. ~~~~}}

Threads should only be marked as resolved if you are reasonably certain that it is indeed resolved to the satisfaction of the original poster. Stale is used if a thread has sat for 5-7 days, and it appears that no further comment is forthcoming. Stuck is used when answers have been attempted, but without any progress. Threads are archived after being tagged for at least two days (thus the need for a time stamp). Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just tagged about 30 of the current 70 requests with one template or another. In the interest of readability, I may archive a little sooner than usual. It is very helpful for archiving if assistants regularly tag threads as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went through the other day and tagged a bunch - quite a lot of that backlog is stuff that can really be removed as resolved or stale. It never occurred to me that adding a timestamp would help archiving, though. I'll do that from now on. Fleetflame 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've noticed that the page hasn't been automatically archived for a while. I don't know too much about MiszaBot, but looking at the template at the top of the page, isn't it instructing the bot to archive items that are 90 days old? In which case, that's far too long, surely? --BelovedFreak 10:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the template to 3 days, following instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Hope I haven't broken anything. --BelovedFreak 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.". I think 90 was chosen because the archiving was usually done manually. As the policy stands, tagging can't be done by a bot and we really don't have any bots that will only move tagged threads. If we want to change the policy (since it seems like nobody likes tagging threads), we probably should do so. In the mean time, I'm switching it back to 90 days. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing the primary task of manually archiving. We chose this method because it allows for a little more flexibility, and the recognition that some requests just plain take a little longer. Please note the thread above - archiving is tied to the tagging, as it allows others to see where the progress is on the request. The archiving has gotten a little backlogged again, as I have had some emergencies arise, and will now be out of pocket for about three weeks. The archiving is done by simple cut and paste - and just opening a new archive as each one successively gets full (~100k or so - there's no hard and fast rule). Ideally, the main request page should be under 100k so that it is easier to open and access. Threads should be archived any time after they have been tagged for two days.

Anyone care to volunteer to step in and watch over the archiving (which usually also involves being the one to do a lot of tagging)? Pastordavid (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not promising anything, but I'll see what I can do to help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask what may be a silly question, but do we add threads to the archive page in order of archival, or in order of the date the thread was originally posted? I have just archived a couple according to the former, but wanted to make sure I'm doing the right thing. --BelovedFreak 11:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I tended to archive by order of archival - its just easier. E.g., two threads one day after the other, the first is resolved in 2 days and tagged, the second has an ongoing conversation and is not tagged for ten days; they are both archived 2 days after being tagged. Doing them in order of archival allows you to just go through and cut and paste moving down the list. Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought, thanks. --BelovedFreak 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, BelovedFreak, I'm sure the other assistants here would join me in saying we appreciate you jumping in and helping. It's always nice to see more people help out here. Fleetflame 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. --BelovedFreak 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I set the MiszaBot delay back to 5 days. I don't think many items sit for that long, but it'll work as a backstop just in case. If something hasn't been touched for 5 days then I suggest it is stale, even if it hasn't been tagged as such. And, yes, thanks to B-freak for taking the lead on the manual side. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work. Turns out there are threads that are untouched for 5 days but not considered stale. I reset the parameter for now, but we need a flag-reading bot I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot doesn't have anything to do with WP:EAR; PastorBot (LOL) does all of our archiving manually. You can't really get a bot to archive because we have resolved and stale and stuck tags. Only a human assistant can do that properly. Fleetflame 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A better-constructed bot request

After my earlier misadventures, I looked for a better route. I posted at WP:BOTREQ and User:Dycedarg was kind enough to offer to help. I think the best approach would be to lay out the specification we would like, and let Dycedarg speak to the feasibility. I've taken a shot below; please edit mercilessly, or, if you think this is inappropriate and better done manually (as Fleetflame has suggested before), then please explain that too.

Proposed bot-archiving parameters

• If thread is tagged with {{resolved}} then archive after 4 days.
• If thread is tagged with {{stale}} or {{stuck}} then archive after 7 days.
• All other threads to be left as they are.

Thanks for reading. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is basically exactly what I do for WP:GL/IMPROVE, except there it will also mark threads stale that have sat there unedited for a certain period of time. The code could be adjusted to perform the task laid out above with no effort, so whenever you have decided amongst yourselves exactly what you want done I'll set it up for you.--Dycedarg ж 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the other thing the bot does for WP:GL/IMPROVE is sort the archives it makes by the template the sections have on them, so I can do that or not depending on what you decide you want. If you want an example of the archive it makes take a look here.--Dycedarg ж 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys read this talk page? If not, read it; and if you have, read it again. Half the space here discusses archiving. Before my time (more around J-stan's) they decided to archive manually because even if people tag requests as stuck or resolved, they may have mis-tagged, and a bot cannot account for this. It's never really been a problem until now; Pastordavid usually does it but he's gone for the month. When he comes back I'm sure he'll do it again; BelovedFreak has done some here and I'm willing to help. I don't really see a need for a bot; I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. Fleetflame 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first part, it's not clear if that's because assistants enjoyed doing it or because no appropriate bot had been found or for some other reason. For the second, thanks for your thoughts. Let's see if anybody else has an opinion! --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A request was made for input and I gave it. I didn't read the talkpage first and there's no reason I should have. If you don't want input until you've argued amongst yourselves for a few days then fine, I'll remove this from my watchlist and you can come get me if you ever want me again. By the way, a request would have to be mis-tagged for days before being archived, and frankly checking every 4 days for mis-tagged requests is less work than manual archiving.--Dycedarg ж 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dycedarg; I didn't mean you. The guy who usually does our archiving is gone for a while and everyone else is going crazy about it. I was talking to the other assistants here; my apologies if you thought I meant you. Fleetflame 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. You said "guys" and only one person besides had me commented in this particular topic; additionally you weren't indented and who you were replying to wasn't obvious. Sorry that I got upset at you, I had a headache and a short temper as a result. Anyway, be sure to let me know if you all change your minds.--Dycedarg ж 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This has been a long dispute here; although only one other guy has commented in this section, it's been a long debate. Thanks for understanding! Fleetflame 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Okay. This is my last attempt. I think I really have the right proposal. I propose that WP:VPA be merged and redirect to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. For one thing, I don't like the Village pump name, because when I was a new user, I didn't understand its context. For another thing, it looks like they serve the exact same purpose. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{merge}} template, as it is meant for use only for articles. You don't need a template here-just discuss here and WT:VPA. There are subtle differences between the two pages, and we have a backlog of 37 requests (which is ridiculously low compared to normal, because a few new people have been helping out here) and VPA has a backlog of 18. Because different people help out on each board, why would you want to merge? Fleetflame 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My purpose was to try and help simplify things for users by eliminating some of the duplication in Help pages. I think there could be quicker responses for requests if users are re-directed from VPA to EAR. --WikiWes77 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the utility of this new proposal, we already have consensus at WT:HD. I am going to go act on that discussion now and tag WP:VPA as historical while put a notice directing all users to either WP:HD or here. - Icewedge (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay then. Consensus is good. But I still don't understand why my other proposal was accepted and not this one. --WikiWes77 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines

I'm trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines rewritten to be clearer in terms of what is allowable from people with conflicts of interest. At the moment they seem to allow most edits, but there are also several parts saying COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is not clear whether COI editing is generally unacceptable or only when it results in bad edits. I have written a proposed revision of the guidelines, but because of my own conflict of interest I really don't want to make any kind of change without consensus. Since a lot of people with COIs seem to end up here, I thought people who monitor this page might want to comment at User talk:Helenalex/coirewrite or on the conflict of interest guidelines talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

Is the bot busted or something? The page is getting huge, and there are things that have been marked as resolved or stale for nearly three weeks... Tony Fox (arf!) 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no bot than can archive here due to the need for tagging to be read, please see discussions above. I have archive some tagged stuff to archive 41 and will move the rest of the ones that I tagged today later this week to archive42. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jez. I think I've been playing the role of the bot for the past few weeks, and I haven't got to it recently. Sorry all. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now it's under 100K, so that's not too hideous. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, at least 90% of this entire talk page discusses archiving and there are still editors asking about "the bot." I should be back to WP as normal in ten weeks or so, and I'll be happy to help archive then. Fleetflame 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving stale topics

I know the template box at the top of the page explicitly states we should archive {{stale}} topics, but I think we should rethink this. Stale and {{stuck}} topics should be left on the page in their sections until we can honestly list them as {{resolved}} or {{unresolved}} (or moved or whatever). This is just my opinion, but I don't like it that people come here, list their complaint or question, nobody answers, so it disappears. I realize most people who post here don't even bother to watchlist it the page and don't even notice when we resolve something, but still....for those who do, I don't like it. Thoughts? Fleetflame 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you just suggesting we rename "stale" to "unresolved"? How would we use the new "unresolved" differently than the current "stale"? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we already have unresolved and stale. We should still mark stale discussions as such, but not archive them until they are either resolved or we've found they cannot be. I just don't want editor's questions to be swept under the rug. Fleetflame 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that editor's questions should not be "swept under the rug". On the other hand, aren't you worried the page will get too large? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously this means the volunteers must work harder. There are 99 people signed up here to help out with editor assistance, only maybe 12 have this page watchlisted and fewer still answer requests. It may be completely impractical, but I just want to avoid questions being overlooked. Fleetflame 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fleetflame, I suggest checking out the EAR archives and see how many threads on this page get definitively resolved. I see part of the problem as being that there aren't particular criteria for calling a case resolved. I mean, do we need to wait until the poster says that their issue has been resolved if it's not clear if we've answered their question? What about cases where it isn't clear what the question is? Or if the answer has been to start discussion at the article talk page- is it resolved then, or when it's clear the dispute has been resolved?

I kind of think the use of "resolved", "unresolved" and "stale" are deceptive terms. More descriptive flags might be appropriate, sort of like what they use at HD and SPI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I've already this evening changed two stale tags to an unresolved and a resolved - go figure. We need to discuss here and figure out how we should do this - that's why I brought it up. To me it's an issue - if not to anyone else, fine. Of course, posting editors could always relist their questions....thoughts? Fleetflame 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Another classification might be

• Fixed (aka Done) - for cases where a well-defined action is clearly indicated, e.g. reverting vandalism, page moves, fixing broken markup. Assistants here often just do it and then reply with a post explaining what they did.
• Answered - for cases where the resolution is to give advice, rather than solving the problem on behalf of the original poster. I've sometimes used 'Resolved - advice given' to denote this. It can of course be subdivided into 'Advice given and taken ' vs. 'Advice given and declined ' but I don't think we need to mark that.
• Declined, perhaps, for posts that can't be adequately addressed in the way the OP hoped for. "Please tell editor so-and-so to stop editing my page" might be an example here.

Does that seem to cover most possibilities? I'm sure it won't be completely exhaustive but it might cover most situations. Using 'Answered' rather than 'Resolved' is a more accurate description of what can reasonably be expected, and also meets the charter here, which I read as saying we'll help 'em learn to fish, but we're not obliged to catch fish for them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, actually. We also need to encourage our volunteers to use summaries with these tags though, at least to facilitate quick reviewing via the archives. So "answered" might have "Directed to WikiProject for specialized help" or "Advised to discuss at article talk page". Though "declined" as you describe would essentially overlap with "answered"; the solution would be to go to a user talk page. I think maybe "unanswerable" or "request unclear" would be better than "declined" perhaps? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't too happy with Declined, so any upgrades there are welcome. {{notdone}} perhaps? And I agree that summaries are helpful, although a post at the end of the thread can work too, especially where the thread is short and simple. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the following then:

• "Resolved"; for situations where a volunteer has actively gone out and fixed the problem, generally for small stuff like vandalism where it's very clear the OP's problem is resolved
• "Answered"; a volunteer has provided definitive advice or a clear suggestion, but doesn't necessitate that the OP has seen/accepted it- may include redirects to WikiProjects, noticeboards, talk pages etc. as well as responses to "non-problems", should go with a matching user notification template
• "Unclear"; the OP's post needs clarification before a volunteer can help, should go with a matching user notification template

And a couple optional ones:

• "In progress"; a volunteer is specifically taking charge of this issue (i.e., the volunteer is trying to mediate a dispute at an article talk page)
• "Unresolved"; a volunteer has attempted to actively resolve this issue but has failed

I'd say "resolved" should be archived in 48 hours, "answered" in 7 days, "unclear" in 2 weeks, while unanswered, in progress or unresolved should not be regularly archived. We can probably get a bot to handle this too. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That would work, I think. There might be a little bit of potential overlap; I can imagine cases that are both Answered and Unresolved, but we can deal with those as they arise and this would surely be an improvement over the current. Should there be a user-notification template for Resolved too? --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it's strictly necessary to notify for resolved as I have it; my "vision" of the purpose of resolved here is that it would be used for cases where it's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the problem page/editor/whatever that there is no more problem. As to unresolved, well I kind of figured it for the same sorts of issues that would get marked resolved when completed. Somewhat by nature, cases marked "answered" probably wouldn't be resolved by the time they were archived. Of course, I don't think it's really necessary to get too specific here. The only concern I'd have is people using "resolved" for cases where "answered" is correct and thus getting the thread archived faster. A notice template for new volunteers who incorrectly use "resolved" might be helpful, on that note. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So, e.g., the Tom Van Flandern case would be marked Answered? That works for me. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I really don't see the need for an "Unclear" template. Couldn't we just put {{unresolved}}? Especially since we really only use the tags for whoever archives (AndrewHowse at this point, I believe), it doesn't matter why the request is unresolved, the archiver just needs to know that it is. Right? Fleetflame 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also see here. Fleetflame 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the value in the "Unclear" tag is a part of alerting the OP to the lack of clarity. Thanks for the archiving credit, but Jezhotwells has been doing a good deal of the work too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But if we create a template and notify the OP anyway, doesn't that make an overlap that's unnecessary? Fleetflame 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's redundant, but it avoids the need to check the OPs talk page to see what if anything was posted there. I think we should avoid assuming that OPs will make the connection between posting here, watching here, and something on their talk. But it's a nice refinement, not central to the scheme proposed; I'm not going to fall on my sword for it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying when we apply the "unclear" it will automatically place a message on their talkpage? How would that work? Or am I missing something again....(sorry, I'm slow sometimes) Fleetflame 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice but I don't know how to do that! I was imagining two templates. One would be applied here on the project page to inform other assistants, and the OP should s/he be watching, that one assistant found the post unclear. Other assistants could agree (silently) or perhaps offer another pov. The second template would go on the OP's talk page to let him/her know that we couldn't answer the question as posed. Might well need some custom words of explanation too. Sorry for confusion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can go with the suggestion of leaving "stale" for seven days, then converting to "unresolved" and archiving after a further two. "Unclear" would mean also putting a notice on the user talk page, can we create a template or tag for that? "Resolved" to be archived after two days. Perhaps "answered" as well for things that don't meet the "resolved" category. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We cant really use unclear as there is already a template used for tagging articles or sections that are unclear. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, I see now. I guess I'm thinking of the tags only being used for the archiver and not really being seen by the OP's or other people who may stumble along here. Either way, I agree we should use the comment features in any templates to simplify things for everyone else....I think like you guys are saying we could use {{resolved}}, "answered," and maybe even still {{stuck}} and {{unresolved}}, and assume non-tagged entries are stale. That way we just don't archive untagged entries and as long as we work hard enough to at least answer questions, the list shouldn't get too long. I've been thinking we should try to recruit more volunteers anyway; every now and then someone gets interested and helps for a while (I think Belovedfreak was the last one), but eventually they die out. Even people who evidently have the page watchlisted (Arichnad) don't often answer questions or even tag them. I'm not condemning you guys, I'm just saying it'd be nice to have more helpers, especially since if we implement a new tagging method the backlog may grow faster and stay longer. Perhaps we could leave a message at the VP or on the community portal noticeboard? Fleetflame 21:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon most people who post requests here expect a fairly quick response. If they don't come back to say thanks or further comment within a wek then I think it is fairly safe to asume that the editor request has at least been answered and after tagging it can be archived after a few more days. I have no idea of how to cerate an aswered templed, any pointers anyone? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just use the syntax from any of the templates we use now - I like the border around them better than the clerk templates' style with just an image and text. I'll mess around with it in between writing papers tonight ;-) and see what I can come up with. Fleetflame 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good; the image in {{Completed}} might work as part of it. Green indicates positive, plus the arrow gives a sense of "over to you" towards the OP. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is just a preliminary version I slapped together in a few minutes. I'm not sure if the ellipses idea will work at all, but it was a good idea I think (at least at first). My working copy can be found here, go ahead and screw with it if you all want to. I would need to at least create an .svg version; do you think moving them to the middle of the line will be too confusing? Fleetflame 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the 3rd. I don't think the ellipsis in v1 is quite obvious enough, and I think the clock in v2 implies "in progress" more than "done". But the 3rd has a bit of a "we have spoken" tone, which works for me. Thanks for bashing these out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out and for "answered", and for "unclear". They don't really need to scream the response they're connected with, but they do need to be distinct enough from other symbols that a volunteer quickly learns to distinguish them by sight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the list of templates: you can see it here. Fleetflame 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting counterpoint here. I don't agree with Hammersoft, but it's a valid pov all the same. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point Kainaw makes in response is doubly valid here; the use of resolved and similar templates helps the volunteers quickly navigate through issues, rather than having to check the page history and read every post if there's someone else watching the issue. I also agree though that we should never make this sort of tagging anything more than "suggested". We can also probably do without an equivalent of {{helpdeskreply}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I think voluntary tagging of the issues by OPs is a good idea, but it can only be voluntary. I was actually rather keen on "you have a reply at WP:EAR" as a notification; I can perhaps try typing it out, one letter at a time! --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking of archiving (I can hear the groans!)

Would any one object to me setting up a bot to archive this talk page. there is stuff here from over a year ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. This talk page doesn't get much traffic though. Why not just archive it manually? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need a bot. I was just considering archiving some of it yesterday, in fact. I'll probably be able to do it later today if no one else gets around to it (or tomorrow, UTC). I would at least put a note on here somewhere about it specially because it has to do with archiving the project page, etc. - stuff we still do here. Fleetflame 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I got it. We probably don't need auto-archival for this page since, honestly, there were only 27 threads covering 55K of discussion in over a year and a half. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mendaliv. I concur. Fleetflame 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that a bot is not needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

Anyone think we should create an Editnotice for EAR, along the lines of the ANI editnotice? Specifically, something containing some of the posting information that's in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Header, as well as suggestions on better places to seek certain types of advice. The proper location of EAR's editnotice would be MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Editor_assistance-Requests (need an admin to create it; WP:AN would probably the the right venue). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we could just get SpinningSpark to do it, if he's not too busy playing with his new buttons. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wondered why my ears were burning, but I don't have the buttons yet. SpinningSpark 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That kind of slavish adherence to policy will get you laughed at, over at ANI. Anyway, don't forget the little people... --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How's this look?

It takes some of the bullet items from the current page header, while remaining concise, and features an icon that should grab a new poster's attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps link to WP:NPOV in the first bullet, and in the {{la}} bullet put "article title goes here;" otherwise, that looks awesome! Good job! Fleetflame 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, easy enough. Any other thoughts about an editnotice before I request it be added to the page? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to add editnotice

Okay, I'm requesting that an administrator copy and paste the following code into MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Editor_assistance-Requests:

{{editnotice
| header = For best results when posting here:
| text =
* Summarize your concerns ''concisely'' and ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrally]]''
* Provide a link to the article in question using {{tlx|la|''article title goes here''}}
* Avoid copying large quantities of text (over 2 paragraphs) to this page
* Remember to '''[[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign]]''' your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
* Read the [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/FAQ|editor assistance FAQ]] and the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution policy]] (if applicable)
* ''Do not'' post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard- it causes confusion and may be [[WP:FORUMSHOP|considered disruptive]]
| image = [[File:Orange exclamation mark.svg|64px]]
}}

Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done by Uncle G. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, I see that the notice has been added to the top of Archive 45. I have posted at Guy. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it when editing either page; does it perhaps show on all subpages by default? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. That's a feature of editnotices; they automatically display on all child pages unless there's another editnotice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think it's worth setting up a different, perhaps blank, editnotice for the archive pages! I also notice that when I have WikiEd enabled, the editing buttons are aligned to the top of my screen, neatly obscuring said editnotice. Still, anyone using WikiEd will just have to be cluey enough to figure it out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, an expedient solution would be if all the archive pages were of the structure "WP:Editor assistance/Archive 1" or "WP:Editor assistance/Requests/Archives/Archive 1" instead of "WP:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 1", and then set up a blank editnotice that way- it's kind of how ANI gets away with it. Or just to deal ignore it, like the helpdesk does (though their archive structure is such that they could easily set up a blank editnotice). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So, does anything still need doing? If so, please ping me on my talk. I don't see what I would have to do right now. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it isn't showing on WP:Editor_assistance/Requests -- at least not using Firefox or dare I say it IE!!! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it does show when you edit that page. Doh!!!! <goes away to watch The Simpsons> Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or since we've added the editnotice have we had more posters adding {{la}} when they post their requests? Good thought Mendaliv! Fleetflame 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's working... though I think the next step might be a "preload" for when someone adds a new section (like WP:TWBUGS has), which would help better normalize formatting... but I don't think that's entirely necessary at this point and might just cause more problems than it solves. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that this board's editnotice is now located at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Search archives and new tags

Is there anyone here with experience in template creation, syntax, etc? I was wondering if we could get a search bar in the archive box (sort of like they have at the fringe theories noticeboard). Also, did we or can we ever reach consensus for the new archive taggings? Fleetflame 01:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a search facility to the archive template - I don't know how to make new archive tags work. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags: We're going to use Resolved/Answered/Unclear? And archive after 2, 5,14 days respectively? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that, though we still need a better tag name for "unclear" considering it and almost every related template name is taken. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Specifically, {{Resolved}}, Fleetflame's 3rd unanswered (the one with the loudspeaker) and your purple unclear, the latter 2 at User:Fleetflame/ear templates. Can we call it Template:Infoneeded? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

{{InfoNeeded}} is currently a template used by VandalProof... while different it's pretty close and might result in confusion. We could take over that one since VandalProof is no longer supported, but honestly I'd rather not without asking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to find some other available names. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

{{cant}} (and a redirect from {{can't}} and {{cannot}}) might be good for a template that says "Cannot handle as posted" or something like that? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly appropriate. Good stuff. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so {{resolved}}, archive in 2d; {{answered}}, archive in 5d; {{cant}}, archive in 14d? I'm fine with that. Actually, I'd prefer "answered" be more like 7d, for the same reason we recently changed AfD to 7 day discussions, that sometimes editors can't edit more than once a week. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe it's just me, but stylistically I think all the templates should have the same icons. Like if we're going to use the round purple "unclear" we should switch to the round green resolved, etc. I think it would just be good to keep them all the same. Maybe we could even name them {{ear-resolved}} {{ear-cant}} etc. Fleetflame 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Main problem I see with making a custom template set for EAR is that people would be likely to just keep on using those templates they prefer, and we'll likely end up with disused templates, or if we started forcing the issue, complaints of bureaucratic behavior. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about it, but I think convenience is the most important feature. I see what you mean though about consistency with icon styles, though. It does look better.

If we wanted to go that way, what we should do is have a single template {{ear}} with switch statements so {{ear|resolved}} makes one, while {{ear|answered}} makes another. Another advantage of this is we'd mitigate the overuse of simple, generic template names. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. Three of us makes consensus here, I'd say. Meanwhile, over ta the project page - is it OK to continue archiving Resolved's after 2 days or so? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tentatively fine with 2 days on resolved, provided it sees reduced usage along the lines of my suggestion in the earlier thread (i.e., requests that were actively/directly resolved by a volunteer). My concern is that something that's only been answered getting prematurely archived, which would be very likely if we had a more specialized archival bot. From how thorough the volunteers here have been, in my view, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure the person who handles archival will generally confirm the tag before archiving. Of course, I also think the archival rule should be pretty loose (i.e., 2 days either from tagging as resolved or from the last substantial comment to the thread, whichever makes more sense for the case).

Regarding the templates, Fleetflame dropped a note on my user talk asking about the switched template. Having thought about it, I'm not sure if that's the best route because it increases the complexity involved for someone to use that template instead of other, regularly used ones (i.e., {{resolved}}). My thought is the two main reasons for using the ear-specific switched template are, one, to have consistent icon styles, and two, to have a better name for the "unclear" template than "cant". We can probably deal with the former issue with different icons (e.g., use an orange or yellow exclamation for "cant" and a blue arrow for "answered"), though I like the other icons we've gotten thus far. As to the latter... I think it's a crappy situation, but like I've said, I think people will prefer to just use the templates they use elsewhere... and by making them board-neutral, we allow "answered" and "cant" to be used pretty freely by other boards.

As to the syntax for a switched template, though, I should be able to hack something together. But if someone else wanted to do it a good example of switching would be {{ambox/core}} (used by {{ambox}}; in turn is used by... just about everything), which has multiple styles compacted into one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out User:Mendaliv/ear for a switched template based off the {{ambox}} syntax. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, but can you shorten the first switch to reduce typing, something like a for answered, unc, unr, s etc? – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure; there are now shortcuts (per your suggestion) available, as well as the longer forms. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Plenty good enough to use; suggest we adopt immediately (but without changing any tags already applied). --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. No harm in doing a trial run, anyway. I moved it out to {{ear}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Made the first use of it a few minutes ago. Seems to work, though one problem I've already hit is that I used "u" as a parameter instead of "unc", for some reason expecting it to work. I think it might be worth putting "u" and "un" directly to "unclear", since we seem to get many more unclear requests than ones which go from resolved to unresolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent: Excellent - if it's a success here we should suggest using it, or something similar, at the Help desk and the New contributors' help page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I love it, Mendaliv. Good job. I think this will work out a lot better - one other question. Shouldn't we put a notice somewhere (/Header or the editnotice) telling the OP's to tag their requests "resolved" when the question's answered? That would save us work in asking each one individually and also make things somewhat simpler for archivers and other assistants if followed. Fleetflame 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We could certainly suggest that, but I'll put £5 on it being honoured, um, infrequently? Certainly no harm in suggesting it though. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an option for threads that have been moved/multiple posted to/on another forum would be useful, such as Template:Moved conversation. SpinningSpark 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a pretty basic clone of {{moved conversation}}; just do {{ear|m|message}} (preferably including a location in that message) and you're set. I probably can add a third parameter to make it more like the moved conversation template, but honestly I'd rather not at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me as it is, no need for any complications. SpinningSpark 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Absence

Hi, just to say I shall be (mostly) away from computers for the next three weeks, on holiday. Seee you guys in mid-May. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy! – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Leuchter etc

I've closed off the Leuchter thread, since the original question raised has been addressed fairly fully, I think. If any other assistants disagree then please, by all means, re-open it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably quite appropriate, especially as the same matter is being discussed at other boards. EAR isn't a forum on which to extend disputes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey there. Once upon a time, in another life, I knew how this page worked. I did an archiving run per what I remember to be the practice - I seem to remember that it never seemed to get done quickly enough, so I though I would pitch in. Please revert me if the general practice has changed. Also, I note that y'all are using new templates. It would be helpful if you could provide those in the header, where the old stale and resolved templates are listed, for folks who want to help out. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Athanasius, after taking a very cursory glance at your archiving, one thing I noticed was that you archived an untagged thread - please don't do that! Otherwise, seems to be fine, and you can find information on the tags here or in the discussions above. Thanks! Fleetflame 19:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it must of slipped by. Thanks for catching it. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right though that the noticeboard banner needs updated. I've actually been considering a "volunteer's steps" subpage for a bit now, with page procedures as well as basic dispute resolution advice. Particularly since the back-end of this board is a bit more complicated than answering questions and marking the status of each request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how should it be updated. How can we put the new tags in for instance? Jezhotwells (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a collapsed set of basic instructions for volunteers, and/or a subpage with detailed instructions, like what they have at WP:ABUSE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)