Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 8 January 2009

Count

136. Algebraist 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, what a clever move ... ---Sluzzelin talk 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Practicality of this list

I was about to recommend a matrix so each user can specify which desks they're interested in but I realised that that would eventually become quite impractical. Then I wondered whether it is practical as it stands. Personally, I think it's quite a cool list. But how viable is it in the long run? Are we going to remove users who become inactive? If not, it will become seriously long after a while. Zain Ebrahim, Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Just for the fun of it and inspired by this ... . In trying to make a "funny" comment in response to Stanstaple's question I thought that this list would be interesting for the "...someone..." part of the Julia Roberts quote. I'm thankful for the contributions by yourself and others but I'm sure that some important contributor(s) have been omitted and so I'm thinking that as these things slip into the darkness of archive heaven well, you know, no need to worry about the practical implications that you correctly point out. ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual inspiring post: "You of all people should know Terry, in your hotel, there's always someone watching."  ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's highly practical. You never know when you need to canvass for an MFD :P. We've reached 101 entries! What are your thoughts about adding editors who haven't contributed at the desks for a while, but used to post regularly? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add 'em in. If not, then we should remove our names if we become inactive. Let's just make it an extremely long list and see how long it gets. BTW, how did you count them? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The old way! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a small comment after each name like "active as of..." which can be updated now and then by each individual user if they wish? 79.75.249.17 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Full signature

"Just for the fun of it" again, I've decided to fix everyone's entry to look like their full signature (talk, contribs, however they made it). This way they will be more recognizeable and someone with a complicated sig can add themselves with four three tildes (we can edit out the date later if we wish). --hydnjo talk 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks very nicely composed now, with the interspersed Maniacs, Larrymacs, Rockpockets and Seraphims in flashing colors. I think we've hit something like 115 now, but brain is having trouble counting (and sorting by alphabet :|) Anyway, fun list, hyd & jo!---Sluzzelin talk 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun indeed! I as well as you keep finding missing "links"! Let's keep it going until none are forgotten. hydnjo talk 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(120 as of this timestamp) -hydnjo talk 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot?

We haven't really defined what an "RD regular" is (and rightfully so, imo) so why not? What do you say? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I say lol but ok, whatever floats your boat... 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot doesn't sine its contributions, so what do you plan to put on the list? Algebraist 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a well spotted flaw. How about

—Preceding unsigned signature added by Sinebot

for some irony? Nah, that's too much. Oh well... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->, actually (it's what sinebot uses). Algebraist 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's also Scsbot to deal with. Algebraist 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that! It is Sinebot's signature after all. But if we add SB, we should probably add SCS also. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Without the <nowiki> tags obviously) Scsbot doesn't add anything at all, alas. Algebraist 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding the bots is a great idea. They may not be "volunteers" (more like slaves), but they are regulars. :-) Fribbler (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Fribbler

They are indeed and now they have their own special place on the regs page. -hydnjo talk 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make a separate section, shouldn't you, like, put the bots in it? (me and Fribbler added them) Algebraist 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure I like the folks/non-folks dichotomy in general; I've never committed to humanhood on WP and reserve the right to be an unusually smart AI. Algebraist 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the beauty of this project. Rename or delete the meta Level 0 section headers (or for that matter the Level 1s) as you see fit. I just started a well... startin' place. -hydnjo talk 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, level 0's are gone, level 1 sections renamed and a few other things. -hydnjo talk 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"We haven't really defined what an RD regular is". Well, by this logic you should add the vandals, spammers and trolls as well; Anontalk Spamer, Avril Troll, One True Religion, etc. They're all "regulars" in one sense or another 79.76.186.83 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, by this logic we should add whoever we feel like adding, which is what we're doing already. Algebraist 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that we don't need to define the "regulars", the regulars do just fine at recognizing each other. -hydnjo talk 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you give a false impression by not including the undesirables? 79.76.186.83 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your impression and your characterization. -hydnjo talk 21:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hydnjo, it just seems like there is some sort of cover up going on. I know we shouldn't make monuments for vandals, but listing the more notorious ones here helps in future identification. So I've added a small section with some of the ones I've seen around the most, with a short note about them. No doubt there are more but I think only the most persistent and therefore "regular" ones should be listed. BTW I am the Ip above who started this, I just now made an account. R14zz7 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure about adding the vandals and trolls. Up until now we have only included those who have made positive contributions to the desks. It's a bit like adding Grawp to the list of members of Wikiproject Gastroenterology on the back of his prodigious Goatse posting. Fribbler (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a little different. But I would agree to the removal of the vandal section if the guidelines specifically state only positive contributors are listed, to avoid confusion. R14zz7 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That also opens up another can of worms, as there many regular users who's good faith contributions borderline on disruption, such as extreme bad spelling, misinterpreting information and giving wrong answers as a result, and the guy who only posted "Wiki knows everything!" R14zz7 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I did not add myself on the list. I feel proud. :) Thanks, guys! Kushal (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "regular" intent and spirit

Nothing, I mean nothing within WP is allowed to remain unchallenged.

The genesis of this page came from an RD questioner wondering if anyone really watches or pays attention to the responses to which I responded with a take-off on Tess' insightful response in Ocean's Eleven: "You of all people should know Terry, in your hotel, there's always someone watching." So, needing a page to represent the "someone" the idea of this page was spawned - we the regular responders would represent that "someone" always watching. And so, after a couple of iterations, this "pretty" signature page evolved. A page displaying the sigs of those responders who "regularly" worked the RD desks and with an invitation in the introduction to include or self-include any folks that were overlooked in the vetting process.

Well, then came the suggestion that the worker bees Scsbot and SineBot be included in recognition of their helpful watchfulness in keeping everyone apprised of the folks posting sans sig, a helpful addition indeed and doing the housekeeping chores of adding date headers, transcluding and archiving. The consensus was to include these bots as "regulars" primarily in recognition of and as a tribute to their operators.

Now comes the suggestion to include the frequent trolls rationalizing that they regularly post! I disagree with this premise for the following reasons:

• The regulars reference in the page title refers to the the frequent responders who take the time to research and respond helpfully. This should be understood without the need for "guidelines".
• Diluting this listing with trolls and other disrupters is a disservice to those helpful RD responders.
• Recognizing and naming the disrupters is clearly against our not feeding the trolls policy.
• Their inclusion would obviously open the door to prior but banned regulars.
• The argument for the vandals inclusion on the basis of helping the rest of us to recognize them is absurd - we recognize them just fine.
• The argument that only positive contributors be included is implicit and trying to define that would indeed lead to a "can of worms". We all know who belongs on this list and as stated in the introduction if in doubt - add your sig.
• This is a list of "regular" or frequent RD responders, not OPs.
• This list isn't intended to include those "talk" lurkers who only criticize the goings on but make few real responses.

Although this listing of the RD regulars happens to be in my namespace for now, I claim no ownership. I as well as y'all have the absolute right to rv on sight any posts by banned users and of course to freely edit. -hydnjo talk 10:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, HydnJo. It is ridiculous to include disruptors who clearly have no respect for WP whatsoever. I removed them. If you revert me, make sure you have consensus behind you. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(for the record, and the consensus-driven) Well said, hydnjo. Well edited, Zain. Well kibitzed, me. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification

While adding I wondered if we should, as a courtesy, notify the new "regulars" either on-wiki or by email. Thoughts? -hydnjo talk 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC) addendum: ...and perhaps notify Sluzzelin of all edits ;-) -hydnjo talk 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I was wondering about that too, especially since we list not just names, but signatures, giving the appearance that the listees signed voluntarily, like members of Wikiprojects do. Will try to do so from now on, but I'm too lazy to spam the ones we already added. (You did advertise the list twice, after all). (... and please also notify me about the edits you only thought of but didn't actually make ...) --- Sluzzelin talk 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a template? -hydnjo talk 12:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm fuzzy-wuzzy and not a template fan, but no objections, as long as I get ignore the template and take my time to write some words (as I just did for newly added OtherDave). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to have been invited, Sluzzelin, though it's an odd thing to see my name on a page I'd never come to. I find the reference desk a good place for me; I don't seem to have the equanimity needed to work on articles in which there's any kind of disagreement.

That category ranges from the highly politicized FairTax, to the bewildering effort to treat ß (German eszett) as a letter in English, to the hilarious insistence that the name Macdonald must have a capital D. (While Giolla Coluim mac an Ollaimh did say, "Ní h-éibhneas gan Chlainn Domhnaill" , he would have hooted at the capital-D notion.)

You might consider inviting first (before putting a name in a list), but that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm just shy. OtherDave (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for that (admittedly unexpected) feedback. I guess I'll ask first from now on. Good to have you aboard, in any event! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpha supremacy

Thanks Algebraist. ø after æ after z, ø after æ after z, ø after æ after z... -hydnjo talk 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

About this list

A clarification. Any and all RD contributors are welcomed to add themselves or any others that seem to be "regulars" (interpretation is up to you) to this list. There is no quota or any other test of qualification other than one's own judgment. None have ever been rejected or removed for whatever reason even though they may have left the desks or even the project - we remember. -hydnjo talk 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We rejected some people... Algebraist 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could easily define "RD contributors" and "regulars" to exclude them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to listing some of the historical ones as "(inactive)"? Inactive being defined as no contribs within the last year. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Algebraist 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope! No objection. Any revival of course would be cause to remove the tag. hydnjo talk 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Old userbox

Regulars who have been around for a while are probably already using:

This WP:RD denizen is: Scaly Omniscient Benevolent

...which adds people to Category: Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk...do we really want both? SteveBaker (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - the category that the old box adds you to is also better because it's a properly a sub-cat of Category: Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages collaboration - and follows their nomenclature without abbreviations that most people won't understand. IMHO - we should dump "RD regulars" and use the old cat page instead. SteveBaker (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And then there is the newly minted (by me just this past weekend Template:User RD'er ):

We prowl the Reference Desk

...and I didn't even know of the others :( hydnjo talk 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An odd coincidence indeed, I just added hydnjo's prowler (because that's what I do, I prowl) when Flaming informed me about the new box. Is there a way to lump all template-holders — prowling, brittle and other — into one cateogry? The box design needn't be uniform. In any event, I wish to keep the turquoise one I just added. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with letting people create and/or use any userbox template they like - or for us to provide a wild profusion of interesting and different pictures and silly captions - that's really not the issue.

The issue is about which Category the template adds you to and which page these templates send you to when you click on them. IMHO, the original one (Category: Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk) is the better one - and we should change all of the existing templates to point there and then we should redirect this page to that category page.

Reasons:

1. The original page is a sub-cat of Category: Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages collaboration - which is as it should be.
2. The name of the original page is more descriptive (not everyone knows what "RD" is).
3. IMHO, the concept of a 'regular' is not appropriate. Misplaced Pages frowns on discriminating against occasional or new editors - and excluding them from whatever benefits there might be is a big "no-no". The better solution is to operate the page merely for RD contributors of all kinds.
4. The category is a standard Misplaced Pages category and not some special gizmo.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes so much sense that even I understand, and I agree that the categories should be adjusted according to your suggestion. Regarding item #3, that's an interesting point. Do you think this page here should be renamed as well? ("Editors who contribute to the reference desk" or "Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk") ---Sluzzelin talk 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained (above) - IMHO, it would be better if this page simply redirected to the Category page. Then it would indeed be called " Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk" - which is simple, descriptive and doesn't fall into the "experienced editors only trap" that "Regulars" kinda implies. The "Editors who..." phrasing is OK - but there are a bazillion other pages called "Wikipedians who..." - and I think we should stick with that. But this is all kinda moot - we had this discussion YEARS ago when the original system was set up - and we don't really NEED another thing running alongside it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

About this page

Hello all

As stated above, this article was only started as an example of "someone" is "always" watching in response to a user wondering if anyone is ever watching.

As may be expected, when released into wikispace the original intent of this page has become fair game for criticism from all sides.

At the outset, the "RD Regulars" intention to imply that someone was always watching was in response to Stanstaple's wonderings (haven't we all?). And so I responded with "You of all people should know Terry, in your hotel, there's always someone watching." as kind of a joke.

The "someone" of course were the RD patrollers who I named "RD Regulars" in my namespace User:Hydnjo/RD regulars. Then, as the page gained popularity I moved it to the WP space as Misplaced Pages:RD regulars.

This list of "regulars" has gone way beyond my original intent which was to list some those who patrol (hover) these desks regularly, into a criticism of the list itself (for whatever reasoning that keyboarding could concoct).

I do realize that once put into WikiSpace the article would take a dynamic of its own but, I didn't think that the original intent would be so upset.

No, I'm not against self-includers, oldtimers, newtimers, or anyoners. If you want to include yourself, please do.

I've not spammed this list nor do I intend to. This isn't a "popularity" list but is a recognition or those RD contributors who are considered "regular" either by their peers or by themselves.

To those who wish a different construct I say, fine, do it. But no need to tear this one down on your way.

I truly believe that this list, categorically connected or not, is the best listing of the RD (that's WP:RD) regulars in existence.

If someone is more versed than myself in the art of wikisyntax and wishes to include every entry here in a category, then have at it. I have no complaint so long as it is explained up front (without the need to spam the list). :(

In summary, this is a good if not complete list of those of us who provide this project with additional depth, interest, information and fun. hydnjo talk 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a list with signatures and user names (which aren't always identical) is more useful than a category page, especially for the visually minded. It is certainly easier for me to look up users whose names I can't quite remember. I also think that, while sofar no one has actively objected to being included in this list, people might be more reluctant having such a category (and/or box) added to their user page. Being featured on a list is something quite different from categorizing yourself.

Hmm, I didn't think of that part. OK, I agree with Sluzzelin on this one, no listee should automatically be included in a category just because they've been included on a list. I apologize and will resist any such attempt. hydnjo talk 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Green Jeans (for some reason your grey appears green on my screen), I was arguing against "substituting" this page with a category. I thought you had to add a category link to a user's page in order for that page to appear in a category. In other words, it becomes more of an identity thing than this list. I think the list will always be more useful and more complete than the category can be. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for a name change, briefly brushed one thread above: SteveBaker's comment just made me think about the appearance of cliquishness, and, not being a native speaker, I wasn't sure whether "RD regulars" sounded off-putting to newcomers (and individualists who would never join a club that would have them as a member :). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Harkening back from where we came. No rules. Some of the listed regulars are well, quite regular whereas some are less so. This non-prerequisite make the list quite the democratic cross section then doesn't it? hydnjo talk 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does make the list that cross section, but does the title correctly describe this inclusiveness? Anyway, I'm always fine with the anarchic approach, and I don't even like calling myself a "Wikipedian" (see Groucho reference above) :) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)