Wikipedia talk:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Praise for this item in Wikipedia[edit]

Can I just say that I think that having Wikipedia: Help desk is a marvellous idea? I remember Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers, but I am willing to bet that many people (myself included) who have edited Wikipedia for years go this article on Wikipedia! So, a big round of applause to all who contribute to this aspect of Wikipedia. Keep up your tremendous work, ACEOREVIVED (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 23 February 2012

speaking of archiving...[edit]

Recently at the reference desks, we decided to abandon the longstanding practice of transcluding a few days' worth of archived content back onto the "main" pages. (See these two talk page threads [1] [2] if interested.) Would the help desk like to do the same? Currently the bot archives here after 2 days to keep 2-3 days of real content, and transcludes 1 additional day. We could change this to 3-4 days of real content and 0 days transcluded, or 2-3 and 0, or leave it the same. (Or anything else you like, for that matter.) I have no preference; it's basically as easy to configure the bot one way as another. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If it matters for anything, I've never cared for the transclusion. Even for an experienced editor such as myself, it threw me off the first time I ended up on a transcluded page. And I had to do a double take a few times since then to make sure my comment went where I wanted. Dismas|(talk) 06:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the transclusion is confusing and unnecessary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I suggest 3-4 days of real content. The February daily archive pages are 20 - 40K each, so this shouldn't overload anyone. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the transclusion was confusing. I had noticed that something weird happened if I tried to contribute to the threads near the top of the page; now I know why! Maproom (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

archiving changes imminent[edit]

Okay, in a day or two I'll switch the bot to archive the Help desk after 3 days, with 0 days transcluded. Any objections or further comments, speak up soon! —Steve Summit (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

is the archiver on strike? it looks like there are more than three days up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: The archiving bot is set off manually by Scs (talk · contribs), who is often away at weekends. I'll wade in later today if necessary. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This time, the issue is technical, not personal -- see here and here. Until/unless this problem is resolved, I think I'm going to have to get in the habit of kicking off the archiving in the morning (as I did just now) instead of the evening. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

strange edit[edit]

Can someone research this edit? It restored some previously-archived content, which I can fix, but it also deleted some content, and I don't have time just now to review the history to see if that ever got properly restored, or remains lost. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. The deleted parts of the "Saving edits in draft form" thread were restored yesterday, and I've just restored the "Colon cancer" thread. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant for Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship[edit]

Hey help desk editors. I wanted to bring your attention to a proposal under review. A small team of us are interested in implementing a new system of mentorship that is simplified and focused on what new editors want to learn, but still incorporates the 1-on-1 relationships from the adopt-a-user programs. At this stage, your feedback and comments would be much appreciated, particularly as you work with new editors on a regular basis, and we want to make our proposal fit the community's needs. Please read over our proposal here. If you have comments or questions, please let us know either on the grant talk page or here, and if you support the proposal, please feel free to provide your endorsement at the bottom. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Limits to redaction of information?[edit]

Someone from G(irls)20 Summit recently posted to the Help Desk requesting that 'their' wikipedia page be changed. After the standard responses including WP:OWN, a user went in an deleted the information for the email that was included in the request. Given that this email was for position at the organization, that seems not to fit the definition of "Personal Information". Should the rules on redaction be loosened so that email addresses and phone numbers to businesses/organizations no longer fit the requirements for redaction? I feel sort of silly seeing redactions of media.relations@exxonmobil.com (or similar)Naraht (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree with that. Redaction is for people who do not understand the consequences of what they are doing by posting their contact details. Redacting an organization's e-mail that is freely available out there on the web is a bit silly. To take an extreme case, would we redact someone who tells us that the emergency services telephone number is 911? Oops, I've said it, perhaps someone will redact me? SpinningSpark 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Consider yourself redacted! ;) 911 is not the emergency number in every country, for example in my homeland (Australia) it is 000. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I know, I'm in England where it's 999 (the European standard 112 also works) but I figured 911 is the most widely known. Should have known someone would pick me up on that. SpinningSpark 23:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Great example!Naraht (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)