User:AlMac/Help template

Standard input
Some templates for my own use (or yours if you wish :) ):
 * ~ (4 tildes) generates User:AlMac|(talk) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (standard signature with date)
 * (3 tildes) generates User:AlMac|(talk) (standard identification without date)
 * AlMac generates AlMac without the fancy signature formatting (note the square brackets)
 * generates with contributions link included (note the curved parentheses)
 * generates with contributions link included (note the curved parentheses)

Answering simple questions of definition

 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but this is actually an on-line encyclopedia where you can answer most questions yourself using the handy search bar along the left side of your screen. Type in "XXXXX", press "Go", and marvel at the wonder that is modern technology.
 * In place of "XXXXX" put whatever word or concept the questioner is asking about, and perhaps put it inside the square brackets of the appropriate link.

Help Desk questions that belong on Reference
Insert by writing Reference desk which expands to:

Reference Desk templates
I do not like the scenario of somone asking a one liner question, with a standard response that is rather bulky. I like these a bit more.


 * I'm willing to compromise on the image, obviously. It could be expanded to include a useful reference:


 * -- Ec5618 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

--Urthogie 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about ::::


 * Or rather . What do we think about an optional parameter, to add a useful link to an article? -- Ec5618 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates referenced by AoRDE
Here are some templates that additional folks (Cernan in particular) developed to help deal with some bad habits by some questioners at WP:RD and other places. I plagarized them from Help talk pages before they disappear into archives.

Incidentally here is the link to AoRDE = Association of Reference Desk Employees on the meta Wiki site.

Here's a list of the templates made by Cernen Xanthine for use on the reference desk to either slander or support askers. I removed those that I do not plan to use, for combinations of more rude than I want to be, or more effort to handle the related steps, and also the comments on those. It should be noted that these templates should be subst'd to prevent metavandalism, and you no longer need to pipe your signature into the template tag as before since they're plain text now instead of flashy cleanup-style notice tags. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 10:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * creates: Please do not write your questions in all caps, all bold, or all bold-italic text. It is much harder to read than normal questions and frustrates the reference desk employees. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
 * Use this for when the question is in all caps.
 * Here's what it looks like >
 * creates: Please do not post your questions more than once. We may not know the answer to your question, are still figuring it out, or are refusing to answer for one of the reasons stated at the top of this page. Asking us a second time will not likely get you your answer either, and almost guarantees you we will be ignoring you in the future. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
 * Use this for when the question was posted twice.
 * creates: Please do your own homework. We are not going to help you cheat. We do or have already done our homework; it's your turn to do yours. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
 * Use this for obvious homeworkcruft.
 * creates: Please do not post your e-mail address. Spammers love that kind of thing, and we have removed it for your protection. Please do not repost it.
 * Use this for when they post their e-mail address.
 * creates: There's something glaringly wrong with your question: foo. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
 * Use this for general problems with the question (i.e. they didn't ask one, it's all in the header, etc.
 * creates: This has been identified as a good question by the Association of Reference Desk Employees. Congratulations on asking something thought-provoking and interesting, and we look forward to more questions like these in the future, either from you or someone else.
 * ''The equivalent of a Reference Desk Barnstar for question askers. Used to praise the good questions; insert at the top of the question section.


 * I suggested such templates/standard responses before, but many people felt it was impolite to remind users of the rules so blandly. -- Ec5618 14:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm against template replies. Each question should be judged on its merits individually as it shows respect to all and, some of these folks are going to be our replacements. hydnjo talk 16:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * People can use templates if they like, although Hydnjo is right that a personal response is much friendlier usually...its all a matter of choice, and should stay that way.--Urthogie 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ayone who objects to the formatting of a question strongly enough to comment on it ought to just fix the thing to his liking, and be quiet about it. We don't need a template telling us you've done it: there's no reason to increase the length of the page to demonstrate your ire. If you're getting angry at people for asking questions, perhaps the Reference Desk is not the place you ought to spend your time. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on helping people who disrespect the system? I find the Reference Desk an important tool in mainaining and updating Wikipedia, as it gives insight into missing data in articles. It should not just be a place where clueless newbies are 'helped' again and again when it clear that they will never check back for an answer, and never read the rules. Again, why help people who disrespect the system?
 * I also don't find the above templates particularly rude, and have a greater problem with people posting inane or single-word 'questions'. Should we just remove all questions that do not appear to be genuine questions? That would certainly help to decrease the length of the page.
 * In summary, the RD should not go out of its way to 'help' people who could have 'helped' themselves without much effort. Only stricter rules can curb the number of rediculous questions. -- Ec5618 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, helping the clueless newbies again and again and again and again and again is pretty much what Reference Desks do. If you don't want to do that, you don't want to work the Reference Desk. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ps. I've now read on several occasion that editors who object to repeating themselves, and who would like to curb the number of rediculous questions are effectively not welcome at the RD. I object to that. The reference desk is a disorganised mess, and should be reviewed as such. -- Ec5618 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a disorganised mess? I don't see much of a problem either way. Black Carrot 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am starting to see paralells between my posts and the posts of madmen. Nevertheless, the Reference Desk currently serves its purpose only up to a point. Only a small number of volunteers answer questions, and there is no clear way to archive past questions. The first problem could be fixed, in my opinion, by reducing the number of incredibly stupid questions, and by encouraging knowledgeable editors to patrol these pages looking for articles that require clarification or appending.
 * The second problem could be solved by a system of categories for archival. Many questions do not require archival, for example when the problem with a page is fixed, or when no actual question exists. Only questions that led to an interesting discussion (What is your favorite poem? for example) need to be archived. While this question appeared on Humanities, it could very well be archived under a more specific header, such as a poetry category. Questions regarding computers could be archived together, specified by operating system or some such criterion.
 * My point is that the Reference Desk is little of what it could be. But when I previously suggested actually enforcing the rules at the top of each page, I was told I was uncivil and shouldn't contribute. At the very least then, the rules should be renamed to suggestions or tips, but it should be made clear that asking a question in even the vaguest terms (What are the evils of monopoly?) or completely redundant (what is virginity ?) will be answered. -- Ec5618 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Our point is that many of these silly questioners are first-timers. Whatever you say isn't going to do a damn thing about the next one, it isn't like training one kid. So, the strategy that some of us encourage is to be polite and responsive and helpful. Doing otherwise isn't going to deter the next intrusion but it may well indeed influence this questioner to improve. Scolding is not helpful, and in fact may result in "justifiable" vandalism because we were such jerks. hydnjo talk 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I hold hope that a future software tweak will enable us to force the readers to read the rules. Until then, you know as well as I do that the person who asked 'what is virginity ?' will not be back to read the clever answers given to the question. Ve will not even follow the link to 'virginity' that was created to help vim. All effort to help this person is wasted.
 * There's a difference between being jerks and being professional. Making it clear that a procedure should be followed to ask a question is professional, not uncivil. Answering any question, no matter how innane, or responding with sarcasm to people whose mastery of the enlgih language may be poor is unprofessional, and even uncivil. I ask you, what is wrong with standardising a response such as the following:
 * What is viginity?
 * Please search first - it's quicker. A search for virginity may be helpful. -- Ec5618 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If no other contributors pile on, or offer help/sarcastic remarks the problem is fixed, and the question can safely be ignored. When archiving time comes along, this question needn't be archived. A standard response might even help a bot remove such questions before archival. -- Ec5618 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's some some freaking smart bot. And oh, if someone is researching this whole "mess" in the future for whatever reason well then we'll just change history by not archiving the stuff we don't like because we know it all. Right on Sir! hydnjo talk 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A bot could easily detect any question that has not been answered, or any question that has been responded to only with a stanrd response. Such questions could then be treated differently. Perhaps .. Perhaps unanswered questions could be left on the main page of the RD, while 'silly questions' (those questions with a standard reponse) could be removed after a while, without being archived. -- Ec5618 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I made a lot of people very angry, didn't I. O_o Cernen Xanthine Katrena 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my above post. I shouldn't have minded hydnjo's rather silly answer. For the record, I still don't see how ve could have misread my comment, unless he didn't read it carefully. I don't see what is ambiguous about "A standard response might even help a bot remove such questions before archival." And I don't see how anyone could find the concept laughable, even if they misunderstood its simplicity.
 * Still, I let emotion guide my post, which I shouldn't have. -- Ec5618 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's worth noting you all raise good points. True, my templates may seem a bit harsh, but I believe that to deal with puppies who piss on the carpet, you must give them a good thwack with a rolled-up newspaper. Standard responses seem a bit mechanical, true, but it seems to me that it's a lot easier to just toss in something standard than type out, "Hey, you know what, you're stupid, don't do that dumbass." It's a matter of philosophy; you can love them or leave them, but they're ultimately in my user space and I'll have them deleted if I am told to because I am violating some policy or some such. I never said you had to use them and I'm not forcing them down anyone's throats. It's just a suggestion. Feel free to be bold and edit the wording if you like; I don't really care, honestly. Just putting in my two cents, since I started the controversy. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)