This looks great - and it's on my watchlist. :) Martin 15:25, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's on mine too. Great idea, whoever implemented this. Meelar 22:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks like it was User:Ludraman - and yes, it's great :) --Camembert

Yep, it was Ludraman's idea, and he set it up. He's done good work with the welcoming committee; he helped a lot with the tutorial too.

When this page was still in the idea stage there was some discussion of renaming it to Wikipedia:Newcomers' help desk. If I remember, no one objected and several agreed. I prefer the name Help Desk since it doesn't imply that we're segregating new users out of the Village Pump entirely. This is to provide an alternative, somewhere a newbie can ask questions without worrying about getting barked and without cluttering up the pump. It's not (AFAIK) supposed to imply that newcomers can't post to the main pump if they have reason. Anyway, if I don't hear objections, I'm going to move it tomorrow. Isomorphic 05:45, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Apart from anything else, the meaning of "help desk" is clear, while "village pump" is a bit cryptic. --Camembert

I agree that having a different name from the village pump is a good idea. Angela. 16:36, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Should I move it, then, and redirect this page? LUDRAMAN | T 18:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Iso's done it already. LUDRAMAN | T 18:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's been under discussion more than once and was always supported, so I just went ahead and moved it. BTW, this page was a great idea Ludraman. Isomorphic 20:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone suggested it, I just implemented it. Thanks, though. Is the lead section ok? Also, how long should we let this get before we start archiving? I was thinking that as soon as it gets to forty rm the first twenty, or something like that. It shouldn't get ridiculously long like the main Village pump. LUDRAMAN | T 21:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The header looks good. I don't have a strong opinion on when to archive. Isomorphic 21:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure a lot of this needs archiving. Often, the answers already exist on the relevant help pages, but newbies haven't found these yet. They are no more likely to find them buried in archives than they would on the real help pages, so if an answer is nothing new, I think it would best be deleted. If it is something new, it should be added to a help page. Is there any objection to not archiving this page at all? Angela. 21:54, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Still, it might be a good idea to keep them as records. It also would be easier for a person to go find a question they asked here (even in an archive) rather than buried in some help resource that they mightn't know about. At least if we keep them they will know it's here and where to find it. LUDRAMAN | T 03:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we kept an archive, it'd be for our own purposes. Might be useful to look over questions and answers any time we're revising a help page or a tutorial, first because it's a quick way of seeing what questions are asked often, and second because some of the responses might be worded better than what we have in the actual policy or help page.

All that said, I'm still not sure I think it's necessary. Isomorphic 15:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An archive for frequently asked questions might be good idea, though there is already the Wikipedia:FAQ. Angela. 17:24, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, but given the way that this is currently linked from the pump, how about removing the word "newcomer" from the title altogether, and just having it as a general "help desk"? (The only disadvantage of this name is that it sounds a bit like "reference desk", which could be confusing). This could take an extra bit of load from the village pump without losing functionality - just a place to ask those "how do I" questions that we all have from time to time, but don't really need extended discussion or the attention of every user, like the pump provides. What think you all? - IMSoP 19:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of just calling it the help desk. Sounds nicer. Helps reserve the Village pump for actual discussion. Isomorphic 19:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If noone objects to the title change, I'm going to move in a day or two (assuming I remember.) Isomorphic 03:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. :) fabiform | talk 04:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Angela. 10:44, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that the new name would cause people to believe that it serves the function actually served by Wikipedia:Reference desk. Don't change your plans just cuz of me, but we should think about it. moink 20:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, certainly we'll have to make sure that the text at the top of the page is clear. Should have links to the Village Pump and the Reference Desk, with clear explanations of what should go where. But really, if we have a few misplaced questions it's no big deal. Isomorphic 20:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's not a big deal. moink 23:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious. What happened to this page? Was it moved recently, say in the last 24 hours? The page history seems incomplete. --Voodoo 07:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The history looks ok to me. Are you confusing this page with the village pump or reference desk maybe? Angela. 03:58, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the link to experiment when one clicks on experimental in the first sentence on this page is misleading. One would expect to be led to a Wikipedia page explaining what an experimental page is, but instead, one is led to the page that defines and describes a scientific experiment.

Thanks for pointing that out. As the page has been around for a while now anyway, I've removed the experimental note. Angela. 01:47, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not really an experiment anymore. It's more like a "success."  ;-) Thanks to everyone who've been maintaining it. Isomorphic 02:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and archive this--there's no reason not to, really, and it needs to be cleared out (for this week only I'm on a dial-up). Meelar 03:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Is there any point have both the archive and the summarised questions section? Perhaps the summarised ones should have been archived instead? It might confuse people to have both. Angela. 03:22, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

How about a rename to "General tips"? Meelar 03:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be best in the tutorial or FAQ. I'm not sure it's beneficial to repeat it here. People won't want to feel they are expected to read too much of an intro before posting a question. It might be best to just remove the summarised section, though some links to things like the Wikipedia:Tutorial would still be useful. Angela. 03:33, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps just a few links at the top--to Wikipedia:FAQ and Wikipedia:Tutorial. Meelar 03:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I like this page very much. I agree that the summarized section isn't necessary on this page, but it might be useful to keep it at the top of the archive page -- make it easier for people browsing to see if a question has been asked before to find quick answers. Then again, I don't know whether we need to go out of our way to construct summaries for future archives -- might be enough to make sure the TOC headings are clear and useful when archiving.

I do think we should continue make an effort to make sure that useful or well-written tips generated here are integrated into the FAQ or tutorial -- it would be a shame to have all this good advice languish in archives. Just dumping the summary section into one or the other is a bit disorganized.... Catherine - talk 04:54, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Did some archiving today; my first WkikiMaintenance attempt. Wheeeee!! hope I did it right. . . . . Soundguy99 17:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just been looking over this talk page and it really strikes me as a big success and an example of Wikipedia editing at it's best. Starting off as someone (I think it was MyRedDice) having an idea to take traffic off the Village Pump, it developed through co-operative editing to a highly successful page which gives everyone, not just newcomers, a place to have their queries about editing or anything else answered quickly, and takes these queries off the Village Pump, leaving it free for discussion. Well done, everyone who helped make this page what it is. LUDRAMAN | T 16:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the new (is it new? I don't remember its being there before a week or so past) left frame/right frame in - at least - Cologne Blue. Unfortunately in Firefox, when I'm editing a section of a page and especially if I'm previewing, if I pull the right sidebar of a page down, the editing text does not move in sync with the page as a whole, producing worrisome (what if the browser crashes?..) effects that are also difficult to read. Any ideas? Ways I can clarify? Thanks! Schissel - bowl listen 05:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) (who sees he has just posted this is the wrong spot, was wondering why that took such a brief time to load after pressing submit, washes the egg off his face, and looks for the other page. Yep. Whoops.)

There is different categories for songs and singles. Can you place the same song in both songs and singles?

I'll Be Missing You is placed in both Category:1997 singles and Category:1997 songs. Is this allowed? • Thorpe • 16:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is allowed--a Single (music) is not the same thing as a song. Hope that helps and happy editing. Meelar (talk) 16:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I just used a content fetching script to display wikipedia content in my website. It runs for some weeks and displayed properly. But recently It didnt work on my page. I think lack of copyright notice leads wikipedia to prevent me from fetching. What I want to do get things back well

Urgh. Please don't use scripts like that - they're incredibly wasteful of wikipedia's bandwidth and server capacity. You can download the whole thing (in an hour or so) at Wikipedia:Database download. Most likely one of our developers has noticed the traffic generated by your script and has blocked it as abusive. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 9, 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently started the WikiProject help desk which is for help with software which is used to help contributers. Because of the similar names I have provided a disambiguation link from that project to this one; I came here intending to add a disambiguation but I was not sure where the best place to put it is. Would it be possible for a member of this project to add a little advertising to WikiProject help desk since you would know the best place to place it? Thanks. Triddle 17:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to make it easior for clueless newbies, as well as impatient old-timers, to get quick answers to questions.

So far, my attempts have met with frustrating and even hostile thwarting. "Don't touch the help pages" is the message I'm getting here.

What's up with this? Don't we want to help each other? (Or am I missing something which everyone else but me already knows?)

Signed, An Old-Timer: Uncle Ed 14:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Could you give examples? -- Essjay · Talk 14:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

What sort of attempts do you have in mind? I'm all for improving respose time for questions... JesseW 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

See here and the relevant discussion. No need to open another thread about it here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me like the reference desk is the one no one can find. --Dmcdevit·t 21:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of these "factual questions should..." notes on the desk telling posters to move their questions to the ref desk; perhaps we should have a policy of "don't say move, just move it" similar to the "don't put a cleanup tag on an article if you can clean it up easily yourself." Certainly, the question heading should be left for a day or two with a link to where it was moved (so the clueless poster can find it), but I think the idea of "don't say, do" has a lot of merit. Other's thoughts? -- Essjay · Talk 15:58, July 21, 2005

I think it may be a bit of - "if you don't care enough about your question to move it yourself, you don't care enough for us to bother answering it" - being helpful can go only so far. JesseW 20:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's more of a "if you don't care enough to read the big red box at the top of the page, I don't care enough to answer your question, and you probably won't be back to read the answer anyway." -- Cyrius|✎ 20:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Careful there. In modern technological society, the number of things we are "supposed" to read far exceeds what we can reasonably have time to read. When you buy software, do you read all the doc's? When you go to a web page, do you read it all before entering info in forms, clicking on links, etc.? I don't. I've been using Wikipedia (and Amazon and my bank's site and ...) for years, and I have never read the main page all the way through (for any of these), top to bottom (have you?). Probably I never will. It's just not worth my time. I figure if a site is that un-obvious in its use, it deserves to be misused.

Now, I did read the big red box. Evidently, my personal notion of "what is important to read" matches the general consensus of knowledgeable folk on Wikipedia as well. But for some other people, it doesn't. They don't read everything, because they don't have time, and they don't quite catch that there is this thing that is important to read. So be easy on them. — Nowhither 09:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. -- Essjay · Talk 20:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've just added the following to the instructions in the Help desk template: "If your question is about a specific page(s), please provide links to the relevant pages. (e.g. I'm working on the page for Pluto and...) " I thought it was a good idea since some people don't wikilink their own questions which slows down the answering process, IMO. Thoughts? Dismas 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I have a feeling those instructions are hardly followed anyway. (Also, a substantial amount of the questioners here wouldn't know how to make a link, and sometimes we even get that question) :) --Dmcdevit·t 05:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

True but if it makes even one person link their question to relevant pages, that would help. I agree with you that we do get some real doosies as far as the questions go though. The reference desk has had some really odd ones today! Dismas 20:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In my today's question, I have provided a link.Apnavana 12:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure who to write to so i've sent this mail to a few places. the problem is ther's a guy called cyperpoeta who wants to set up a brazilian wikipedia as distinvct from a portuguese one (why, i'm not sure). but all things being equal, good luck to him. the hitch is her's occupying the br site which is already assigned to breton (where i contribute). he's already changed the welcome page several times. what can be done?? 81.60.240.99 14:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is to block him for disruption if he keeps changing the language (you will need to ask an administrator on the br: Wikipedia to do this, we have no powers on other Wikipedias)., and direct him to m:Help:How to start a new Wikipedia. Thryduulf 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In an effort to stop people from posting general factual questions at the help desk and Wikipedia-specific questions at the reference desk, I have created the question desk. It is designed to disambiguate the two. When you want to link to a place that will answer questions, please consider linking to Wikipedia:Question desk instead of linking to one of the real desks directly. This will help stop people from misusing the desks, which is very annoying to the contributors who man them. Superm401 | Talk 00:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I have a feeling this will just confuse them more.. Elfguy 15:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I do tech support for a living. Most of it is helping people get their questions routed to the right person. The most unhelpful thing a "helper" can do is force people to use a FAQ.

The next time anybody is tempted to say RTFM I suggest they reread Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 18:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Elfguy is right. Yet-another-place to post questions is only going to confuse the issue more. →Raul654 18:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Either you know what place the question should go to, in case you should just say it, or you don't know, in which case you shouldn't be answering questions. If you spot an easily-answered question in the wrong place, just answer it. Oh yes, misuse the desks! Ooh. You can clean your karma afterwards. The vast majority of people never come back after their first question, so "educating" them is a waste of everyone's time.

If you spot a hard to answer question, move it, leaving a pointer here. Everyone wins. Yes, this is more trouble than typing "Read WP:QD. ~~~~", so what? You're also free to ignore the question. Getting annoyed is also an option, but probably not a productive one. JRM · Talk 18:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty clear order (from least to most helpful) in dealing with questions that are in the wrong place: a nasty response, no response, read WP:QD, move the question, answer the question. Since we are all volunteers here, I think any of those options is fine(although the more helpful ones are of course preferred). No problem. Don't bite the newbies just means don't *start* with a nasty response. JesseW 21:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I shall lay out a great and terrible truth. The general public is unteachable, a great mooing herd. No clever documentation is able to overcome this nasty fact. Individuals may be educated; this can be done one by one, perhaps class by class (where the efficiency of the process drops sharply after GROUPSIZE > 30). But nothing at all can be done for the mass of men -- not on the scale under discussion.

The most effective approach to technical support of all kinds is to listen patiently and answer directly each individual. This entails repetition and suggests template answers and customer service cannon fodder. Crafting a personal, intelligent response to each of a stream of stupid questions is the hallmark of a noble, patient soul. — Xiong熊talk* 02:28, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

First of all, I don't want to tell anyone to read the f*ing manual or use an FAQ. I also understand the public is a horde, and this is not going to keep everyone from the wrong desk. However, I think this will help people to find those who are most able and willing to answer their questions. I came back here to notify people that the page name has changed to Wikipedia:Ask a question. Please link to that or WP:AQ. Superm401 | Talk 01:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question this seems the place to do it. I don't really know where to go cause there are just a lot of links and references to other places. I'm confused. This is my first question, I was wonder I looked up a page that was deleted and seems to have been deleted based on the opinion that is was rubbish and anyone thinking of buying the production should get something else. My question is, [u]would it be alright to revive a page that isn't rubbish, but a way to inform people of a product that not everyone likes?[/u] I mean Wiki isn't about supporting popular topics and if so what is popular? The latter wasn't the question. Mrja84 | Talk 17:07, September 03, 2005 (ESDT)

Why is it that people think that Wikipedia markets anything? The latest question about some mystery product really just throws me as to how Wikipedia could be connected in any way to the product. Does anyone have any idea why people think we're associated with companies, authors, publishers, businessmen, etc.? I'm not embittered by this or anything, just really confused... Dismas 12:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Carson/Johnson law of human behaviour: 80% of all questions that begin with the word "why" can be answered with the simple sentence "people are stupid". JRM · Talk 12:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I created User:Dmcdevit/Help desk funnies yesterday to document this. I must have sensed there would be another today. Quite amusing, really. Dmcdevit·t 19:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I believe in human stupidity. :P Elfguy 12:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree its probably stupidity, but it might come from connotation of endorsement on other topics. For instance, a relatively unknown company/product has a topic that was voted for deletion by three people with no votes to keep and the article was kept. The topic was posted by a known employee of the company, is added as links to other articles. Its an obvious wikipedia advertisment but for some reason, its kept on Wikipedia. I've seen evidence of this in other places too, but this one strikes me as obvious because software is my career field. Anyway, the post does look extremely funny. Sleepnomore 22:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some possibilities:

1. The idea of "open development" is a new concept, one that many people have not really grokked. So they see a huge thing like Wikipedia, and they figure there must be a large profit-motivated corporation involved somewhere. Thus: advertising.
2. They are stuck in their own little world, which they think everyone everywhere is terribly interested in. If that world revolves around some company or product, then they figure everyone is interested in it.
3. They have learned that if you are always a nice little boy/girl and always follow all the rules, you never accomplish anything or get any recognition or money or anything. So they learn to Take Risks and Break The Rules. Lots of people do this. After all, if certain people hadn't Broken The Rules a few years back, we wouldn't have Wikipedia, would we? Some people Break The Rules by founding an open encyclopedia. Others Break The Rules by saying, "Hey, wanna buy my cool product?" to everyone they meet.
4. They remember that there is a Real World. And in the Real World, a "help desk" is a piece of wood or metal furniture with a representative of some company or organization behind it. So they approach as a representative of their company/organization. And they do what organizational rep's do when they meet: they talk about collaboration between the organizations. (And then they wonder why we all hate them. "But these people said it was a 'help desk'," they think, "Why are they mad at me?")
5. They learned about the Web by watching TV commercials and reading Business Week in 1998. They think, "The web is a place where people sell things." Wikipedia is on the web. Logic dictates only one possible conclusion.
6. Or, yeah, maybe they're just stupid.

[Wow, that's a lot of possible reasons.] — Nowhither 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

:: This means, stupid or not, that any user can add an article about a company (big or 'small'?) ! into Wikipedia and it's not violating any rules! So if I add an article, about my own company or the company I work in, it's ok? Even if Wikipedia on the whole loses credibility? Egocentric

I'd like to edit the comments page on the page Kennington Park, which I have mainly made, Now I can only add comments. Some of the earlier comments were badly edited and are confusing. Can I sort this out?

Szczels 15:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the help desk be archived by now? 204 sections looks a bit too much. — JIP | Talk 12:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the number of inappropriate questions (ie facutal and marketing) should we rename the Help desk to something that reduces confusion? Maybe a subset of the Village pump, which is less likely to be accessed by non-editors. It is understandable that when a person sees "Help desk" that they ask for help there, whatever type of help they need. Any thoughts? --Commander Keane 05:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm against the name change. The "Village Pump" name, IMHO, is confusing- it took me a while to figure what it was, and even now, I rarely monitor it. Whatever we name the "help desk", I think we are still going to get inappropriate (as in non-Wikipedia related) questions. Besides, we do have a huge box at the top saying that this page isn't for factual questions... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 12:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am having a tough time listing something for deletion. The page is Aidan Coughlan and I can't get the listing on the articles for deletion page to come up right. Can someone help me fix it please? Thanks Davidpdx 9/17/05 6:00 (UTC)

Seems to correctly be on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 17. If you're still having trouble seeing it perhaps you might try the "purge server cache" link near the top of the page. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)