User talk:Mlm42/Archive 2

Categories and subcategories of spacecraft
Hi Mlm.

Yesterday I created a new article MDA Space Infrastructure Servicing vehicle — an in-space refueling depot and service spacecraft for communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Launch planned for 2015.

In the process of categorizing the article and adding a few links to articles that should perhaps mention this, which I believe to be a first of a kind in-space propellant depot, I observed a few things that I'd like to dialogue with you about.


 * 1) a discussion on Talk:Robotic spacecraft that I started in 2009 has a proposal you made in Dec 2010 that, to date, no one has responded to. My guess is that few see this Talk page.  I'll be happy to help you move that along, and weigh in with a view, etc.


 * 2) with the MDA spacecraft being a first of a kind, but there being other Wikipedia articles on proposed propellant depots, maybe we need to think about a new category like Category:Propellant depot or Category:In-space refueling spacecraft or (other ideas are possible...). Would like to start a dialogue on this as well.  Whatdayathink?


 * 3) more broadly: if you have an interest in cleaning up categorization of spacecraft in general, I'd be happy to join you in the effort of rethinking and creating a better set of categories. If so, maybe we'd start with a post on the WikiProject Spaceflight page.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. I added the MDA spacecraft to Category:Proposed spacecraft, which seems like a good place for these things for now. Until some are actually launched, I don't think we have to worry about giving them categories. But yes, I'd like to improve the category system generally.. a step in that direction would be to try and sort out what the role of Category:Spaceflights should be. Should is contain all individual spaceflights? Or should this category be diffused elsewhere? Maybe renaming to Category:Space missions? Then maybe Category:Human spaceflights and Category:Planetary missions would be subcategories. But how would Category:Spacecraft be related? These are tricky questions..
 * As for Robotic spacecraft, yes, there's no objection, so we can definitely move forward with the merge; I'm not sure there's anything really in Robotic spacecraft that isn't already in Spacecraft, so I'd be tempted just to replace the whole page with a redirect. Neither article is in very good shape at the moment. Mlm42 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All good. I read your comment but only have a minute now, then must go.  But if you'll wait just a bit on robotic spacecraft, I'll weigh in on that Talk page; then you can do what needs to be done.  I'll make additional comments later...  N2e (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I left support for the merger on Robotic spacecraft. Other issues are, as you say, a bit tricky.


 * I agree with the adding Category:Proposed spacecraft on the new MDA spacecraft article for 2015, and delaying categories until at least a couple of the things are actively underway (although it should be noted that the ACES rocket stage is pretty close; lots of design work is done and lots of TRL-advancing experimental mission work on microgravity cryogenic fluid management is underway, but I don't think that a full development program for the stage itself is yet fully funded.)


 * I will try to be active with the conversation about moving forward. Where to hold that conversation?  On WikiProject Spaceflight?  Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies
Please accept my apologies for having to host the above unpleasantness. I have taken the issue to his talk page and have left the space project so there will be no repeat of it. I feel that once one comes to the attention of a person like that, one has no real option than to walk away. Thanks again for your assistance and encouragement while I was here, your advice was constructive and helpful. I wish you all the best with your projects. Aakheperure (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Of course I'd rather you stick around the project, since you were doing a great job of improving articles that badly needed improving.. but I understand the desire to avoid conflict by avoiding specific editors (in this case Ezhiki). After reading his comment on your talk page, he sounds genuinely apologetic; so it might be a good idea to forgive and forget.. but it's totally up to you. Anyway, you're welcome to come back to the spaceflight project anytime! All the best, Mlm42 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I value your opinions and advice and I thank you for being around to help me deal with this. I changed the wording of the town references in the lead paragraph of the body of Pavel Belyayev for grammatical reasons (removed repetition) and the fact that I am unclear as to whether that district existed in the 1930s. If Minkovo lay in a different area then, it seems that identifying that it is in the same district now could be confusing for readers.

Would you like to work together on the Yuri Gagarin page? This article has a lot more information on it than the other two I did, I would probably rework existing information into a format similar to that I used on Vladimir Komarov and Pavel Belyayev, if that seems ok to you and use similar source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakheperure (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great; yes that sounds like a good idea. I also pointed out on the Yuri Gagarin talk page that the German Wikipedia version is rated a Good Article, so I was using that page for a bit of inspiration (if you can't read German, then it's easy to use Babelfish to translate the whole page.. the translation isn't perfect, but it's not bad). Mlm42 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can read German, I had a brief look and I don't mind if you want to use the same format, but, because we can, we are writing an English text aren't we? We aren't just translating? Is that right? I certainly have plenty of information on the topic to construct an English text, I will have a poke about and maybe incorporate elements that seem to work well. When I began writing biographies I did model my style on a Good Article I found so we should be able to come up with something fairly comprehensive by using the two as guides. Aakheperure (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I just meant sometimes it's good to look at other language Wikipedias to see how they format their articles; you'll notice that even the German Wikipedia uses the same English language sources that we use! :) Mlm42 (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I misremembered; I was thinking of the Vostok 1 article, which is a GA in the German Wikipedia, instead of Gagarin's article. Mlm42 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite all right, I am sure we will manage. I will help you with Vostok 1 later if you think I can be of use. I actually have a scanned copy of Gagarin's actual post flight report with hand written notes by Korolev on it. It was offered to me by one of my dealers in Russia a couple of years ago, a bargain at a mere $US70,000. I have no idea where it ended up but I hope it was somewhere with the word Museum out front...Aakheperure (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette
I didn't realise posting after your comment at User talk:Alandavidson wasn't done. I apologise. Opera hat (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * After I posted on his page, he expressed several times that he doesn't want to be the one fighting it; so it's unfortunate that it became a big argument on his talk page. That's all; it's no big deal. Mlm42 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I'm not sure where the RfC discussion is going (PMA's personal attacks are certainly not helping the discussion any; thanks for pointing it out to him), but I was wondering what your long-term plans for closing it are. Ideally, it would be great, after a period of initial discussion, to identify concrete proposals and have people comment on specific changes (rather than on theoretical compliance or vague philosophical questions). I hope you would agree that having a romanization guideline in any form is preferable to having no guideline at all, so do you think it would be sensible to extract every specific proposition from the page and format them as official amendment proposals? I've counted at least five such potential proposals so far. However, since it's you who initiated the RfC, then perhaps you have a different vision for how things should develop? All in all, how do you see this RfC end and, process-wise (not results-wise), what development would you find acceptable?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)


 * Well, the RfC itself is only to decide whether or not the guideline is currently backed by consensus. I'm not intimately familiar the WP:PGLIFE process.. but if the RfC is closed with the result that WP:RUS isn't backed by consensus, then this is essentially demoting it from being a guideline. So from there, the way forward is to improve the page to a level (through discussion on its talk page) where the community will accept it. Then it can be put it forward through the WP:PROPOSAL process to become a guideline again. Of course, I do think we should have a guideline, as long as the community agrees with it.


 * If it does get demoted, it can still be useful of course; currently the page is tagged as historical, which seems silly. I'd rather see members of WikiProject Russia tag it with WikiProject style advice, in the mean time.


 * On the other hand, if the RfC is closed with the result that WP:RUS is supported, then it shouldn't be demoted in the first place. Mlm42 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Demoting it and then proposing a brand new guideline is one thing I was hoping to avoid, even as, ironically, the absence of a romanization guideline makes my life and editing so much easier in a vast majority of cases. The only people who can compose a new and workable guideline are those who are intricately familiar with the problem the guideline is supposed to address, and there aren't that many around. I hope you agree that questioning the compatibility of a guideline with an upper-level policy is not at all the same as developing a new guideline from scratch? Which is why I am offering to make the amendment process a part of this very RfC&mdash;this way, when it closes, we'll have a list of amendments which passed and a list which didn't, and it'll be formal and neat (for the next four years, perhaps ;))
 * I can help compile an initial list of the proposals, by the way, but not if wholesale demoting of the guideline or letting it stand as-is are the only two possible outcomes you are willing to consider in this RfC.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 18:49 (UTC)


 * I think there are several parts of the guideline that don't reflect consensus, but I also think the majority of it does reflect consensus. So what do we do? We could get community-wide input on each little change we wish to make to the guideline. Or, we could discuss several changes among a small group of editors, make those changes, and then start another RfC to get the new guideline accepted. Of course we aren't starting from scratch, but there are quite a few points in the guideline which have a poor choice of wording (in some cases, making them inconsistent with policy), and those need to be reconsidered (as is currently happening on the talk page).


 * One thing I'm concerned about regarding the 2007 discussion is whether those taking part realized they were voting for something that was contrary to established policy. Consider the guideline Naming conventions (geographic names).. Pmanderson has the most edits to that guideline and its talk page; and look at the huge number of edits, and discussions, and editors involved in that guideline. It can be considered "widely accepted". Many of the points in that guideline are in direct contrast to the ones in WP:RUS. The prudent thing to do here is to reword the points in WP:RUS so that both you and Pmanderson are satisfied. If we do that (which I think it's possible), then it's likely the result will reflect consensus, which is the end goal. Mlm42 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand&mdash;why do you feel we need another RfC after this one, especially if you think that there are parts of the guideline worth salvaging? Why not get as much out of this RfC as possible? In a few days, unless someone new with totally new ideas joins, the discussion will pretty much stop. To me, that seems like an ideal time to find the specific amendment ideas in all the mounds of debates and submit them as proposals. Each one separately, too&mdash;I was not suggesting we just drop them all into one thread and start everything all over :) So we'd have "proposal 1"&mdash;sack that section; "proposal 2"&mdash;amend this section; "proposal 3"&mdash;add this clause, and so on. It's pretty much the same as what you are planning, except with less bureaucracy and no gap.
 * I hadn't really considered this, but if you think it might work then it sounds fine to me. Mlm42 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I try assembling a list of possible proposals then (making sure, of course, that they aren't open for any !voting/commenting until the people who proposed them sign off on the wording)? Or would you perhaps like to do that yourself or find an uninvolved person to take care of that task?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 21:37 (UTC)


 * On the "contradictions", as I pointed out on numerous previous occasions, most (although not all) are due to the peculiar problems with the process of the Russian romanization. In fact, if these peculiarities did not exist, no one would be bothering with developing WP:RUS in such detail; there would have simply been no need! Consider Chinese, for example. Their approach is pretty simple&mdash;if a conventional name can be established by WP:COMMONNAME, use it; if not, use Pinyin, unless there are good reasons not to. That's it, and it works. With Russian, well, it doesn't work. Russian doesn't have a romanization system as universally accepted as Pinyin, and "using WP:COMMONNAME" results in a crapload of alternative spellings which can float to the top for entirely random and non-obvious reasons which, in the end, would make no sense whatsoever to our readers if we are to act on those findings, and which aren't even always stable over time. It frustrates me to no end that we basically have a handful of people who are not even willing to consider those complications and dismiss them as if they don't exist, not in small part because not a single one of them is familiar with the problem or is even editing in the area that's going to be affected. Compliance with upper-level guidelines is important, yes, but it should not be done for compliance sake alone. To me, it's just plain common sense! And it's not like we don't have guidelines dealing first and foremost with a spelling, not a name (or article title, if you will)! WP:ENGVAR is a prime example. Were WP:RUS' conventionality clause originally written as a conventional spelling clause, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion now. Oh well, everyone is wise in the hindsight...
 * Other contradictions may be valid, but they weren't really contradictions in 2007&mdash;the upper-level guidelines keep changing too, you know.
 * As an interesting aside, consider this exercise. According to your (and PMA's) interpretation of "common name", what title should be the article about Nizhny Novgorod be placed? "Novgorod", amazingly, is spelled the same in every system, but the first part can be "Nizhniy", "Nizhni", "Nizhnii", "Nizhnij", "Nijny", "Nijni", "Nijnii", "Nijnij", plus a bunch of variants with diacritics of all sorts I'm going to omit for simplicity. If we dispose of WP:RUS and have editors properly apply each of the six steps in WP:NCGN, what are we going to end up with? How much time would this research (again, done properly) take? How much time would this kind of research take to establish the "common name" for each of 150,000 existing inhabited localities in Russia and for each of 450,000 which no longer exist (but are notable)? Something to think about the virtues of standardization and what the humanity invented romanization for. WP:RUS isn't about making things "easy". It's about making things "possible".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 20:11 (UTC)
 * I get that your frustrated because editors aren't seeing your point of view, but this may be caused by the lack of examples brought forward that motivate your point of view? For Nizhny Novgorod example I would say that there is no widely accepted English name, because both "Nizhny" and "Nizhniy" seem very common.. do you agree? In this case, the naming conventions guideline says we should use the "the modern official name". The city's official website suggests we should be using "Nizhny Novgorod". So the result is what you'd like, right? If, on the other hand, it were a small place that doesn't obviously define an official name in English, then the guideline says we should use the "local name" (per Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)). The only remaining problem is when the local name has cyrillic characters; and this is what WP:RUS is suppose to help with.
 * My point is that Naming conventions (geographic names) is a good guideline, and will probably produce the right results anyway. I don't think we need to replace parts of that guideline with WP:RUS.. but maybe there is another example that you had in mind? Mlm42 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't quite agree. The "common name" of the city is the romanized version of its modern Russian name; WP:COMMONNAME makes sure that the city needs to be called some variation of "Nizhny Novgorod", not some variation of "Gorky". How to spell that name, on the other hand, would depend on the needs of the source that uses it in a text of some sorts. A linguist using this toponym as an example would consciously choose scientific transliteration; a person compiling a bibliography and including a book that has the city name in the title is likely to choose ALA-LC, and a geographer will stick with BGN/PCGN. "Nizhni", "Nijny", "Nizhnij", or what have you, are not different names; they are different spellings of the same name, just like "center" and "centre" are different spellings of a word that means exactly the same no matter which way it's spelled.
 * Your approach (and I understand that you didn't make a heroic effort to do the whole research, which is fine for this example, but wouldn't be if one really needed to pick the title the way WP:COMMONNAME tells us to follow), in fact, illustrates a bunch of problems that await WP:RUSSIA. A good number of the spelling variations are quite common in English texts, with "Nijni" being most common of them all (although not overwhelmingly so and with two caveats&mdash;that it's most common today is no guarantee that it'll be most common tomorrow; and that it happens to be most common in pre-1993 sources only). Second, what the Russian official website uses is not the same as "the modern official name" (recommended BGN/PCGN romanization actually fits that definition much better). Russian places do not have official English names; they only have official names in Russian and in the languages which are co-official with Russian in some of the republics (in fact, if you look at the naming debates around Kiev, you'll see what happens when someone, in this case Ukrainian government, declares something it has absolutely no authority over, in this case the "official English spelling"). Additionally, the quality of the Russian official websites, to put it mildly, sucks (in any language). Are we really going to take spelling advise from a website which routinely produces sentences such as "in 2013 a new passenger terminal of 15 000 square meters will be built in the territory of Nizhny Novgorod International airport"? And, compared to what the official websites in other places pass for English, is actually not too bad. Most places don't even have English versions of their websites for that matter.
 * Proper research, as per WP:NCGN, would entail consulting the reference works, analyzing (for each possible variant) the results of the gbooks and gscholar search, making sure to exclude those which are irrelevant or not "mentioned in relation to the period in question", consult "other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question" (which means going to the library, and a good one at that), and consult major news sources (NCGN is mum about the proper way of the said "consulting", which in practice means people will be counting unrefined gnews hits, unless someone actually has access to Lexis Nexis, in which case it'll be unrefined Lexis Nexis hits). The results of all these approaches are supposed to be aggregated, weighed for relevance, and the "winner" will be declared (and if there is no winner, then we'll just follow the "divided usage" clause recommendation).
 * Does anything seem wrong with this picture? Even forgetting about the astonishing number of possibilities to introduce personal bias into such a research, even forgetting about the fact that no one is likely to repeat and verify all that research (which makes introducing personal bias even easier), even forgetting about the incredible waste of time this will take to establish a policy-compliant name for each and every place in Russia, even forgetting that in my seven years in Wikipedia I've only seen less than half a dozen occasions to honestly do a quality research on such scale, or even to approximate one, forgetting all that, we basically end up with the fact that our new guideline will have us doing the same research... the people working for the publishers of the reference works are supposed to be doing. Does this explain why WP:RUS took the "dictionaries" shortcut in the first place?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 21:37 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I think maybe it would be a good step to ensure we are interpreting WP:NCGN "correctly", and determine what is intended.. because you and I have different interpretations. How does one draw the line between "spelling" and "name".. cases like "Peking" vs. "Beijing" come to mind. Did this change "name", or just "spelling"? I would say it changed both, but maybe you would claim that only the "spelling" changed?
 * At the moment we disagree on whether or not Nizhny Novgorod has a widely accepted English "name". I don't think it does because the spelling is part of the name. Mlm42 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to interpret the difference between Peking and Beijing, nor do I really care, because it's not related to the romanization of Russian. I'm sure WikiProject China can sort it out. When in doubt, delegate to local experts :) In all, this just isn't a problem WP:RUS will face, so there isn't really a point of arguing it.
 * I was just drawing an analogy with Beijing / Peking, because in that case, the Chinese name (北京) never changed - only the common English-name changed (because the romanization changed). So it's not WikiProject China that decides the article title.. it's WP:NCGN. Mlm42 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is also WikiProject China that decides that NCGN is sufficient to cover such cases... because it probably is. One wouldn't need an elaborate "conventionality clause" if the choice is basically between Pinyin and whatever else the Anglophones happen to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:03 (UTC)
 * I just meant that Beijing is (now) the widely accepted English name, so NCGN is sufficient. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On Nizhny, if you believe the city doesn't have a widely accepted English name, then WP:UE has you covered: Names not originally in a Latin alphabet... must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations... are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, (which we have just figured out there isn't&mdash;Ё) then use it, even if it is unsystematic... For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization. Which brings us back to where we started&mdash;if there is not a common name, and we are supposed to use the romanization guidelines, what do we do when the romanization guidelines are mum about what to do when multiple "systematic transliterations" are available?
 * Exactly, and this is what WP:RUS should be used for: fixing the default romanization rules, when there is no widely accepted English name (per WP:NCGN). The problem is that at the moment WP:RUS is trying to do more than this. Mlm42 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it is exactly what it was used for, so it basically all boils down to how the clause is worded. The term "conventional name" obviously throws a red flag (pardon the pun), which is what my "spelling" proposal is supposed to fix; it'd go like this: use NCGN to determine the correct name to use (i.e., to address the situations such as Nizhny Novgorod/Gorky, or Baltiysk/Pillau); then use the reference works to establish the most common spelling of that name or, if those reference works don't agree, use the default romanization. Sure, you can cut the "reference works" out of that process, but then you'd simply be removing one of the checks and balances, and I just don't see a good reason why. So, instead of having to run every minor spelling variation past the NCGN research process (consider, for example, this case, which by far is nowhere close to covering all possible and valid variations), only the distinct names would be run, and the spelling of the name would be determined using the process above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:03 (UTC)
 * Yes, this "spelling" / "name" terminology seems to be causing problems. Then would you be okay with adding a sentence to the top of the place names guideline along the lines of: "If there is a widely accepted English name [or widely accepted English spelling], as described in WP:NCGN, then that should be used. Otherwise.. ". Because I think it's pretty obvious that in cases like Ulyanovsky, there is no widely accepted English spelling, so the "NCGN research process" is really easy. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting somewhere! The wording you've just suggested will take a bit more refining, but in general I quite like it. Do you mind if I think about it a little more and add it as a specific proposal to the RfC, or do you prefer to submit such a proposal yourself? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 18:09 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add such a proposal to the RfC, if you like. Mlm42 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, when different spellings exist? The WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UE chain has just sent us to the romanization guidelines, so on which grounds do we return to WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UE when all we need to figure out is the spelling of a name, not the name itself? To me, that's a good indication that a spelling clause needs to be present. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 13:05 (UTC)
 * What spelling clause did you have in mind? Mlm42 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've briefly described the idea in the paragraph above. The exact wording of such a clause would, of course, be up for discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:03 (UTC)

Just in case you were wondering when I'm going to get to the promised compiling of the proposals, it'll likely be next week. This week I was hoping to see additional comments from other people (which we did). With two weeks worth of preliminary discussion and two more weeks of discussions of the actual language of the proposed amendments, we should be able stay well within the thirty-day time frame typically allotted for RfCs. Does this plan sound reasonable? Have a good weekend,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 20:44 (UTC)

I've assembled a list of proposals here. I hope I haven't missed anything important, but the list is, of course, open to additions and editing, so even if I did, it shouldn't matter much. Could you please review the list and let me know if you find it acceptable? If you do, you are welcome to move it to the RfC page. Also, please review the suggestions attributed to you&mdash;some were made a while ago and you may or may not want them to be included as a part of the actual proposal, or you may want to reword some of them. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2011; 17:09 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I'm generally of the opinion that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I didn't realise you were planning on adding 9 proposals to the RfC; I thought it was going to be just the one, addressing the issues surrounding "multiple spellings" of the same name.. instead this is option 6 of the first of nine proposals.. so it is fairly well hidden.
 * To give you an idea of where I think WP:RUS should be heading, I've just rewritten it (except for the default romanization bit) at User:Mlm42/sandbox (feel free to edit it further, if you like). This is more the size and scope that I think is appropriate. The reason I cut out so much is that most of the rules set out in WP:RUS are already covered by other guidelines, and appear to simply be unnecessary instructions. As suggested on the talk page, it may be best to move the remaining conventions into the Russian section of Naming conventions (Cyrillic).


 * But basically I don't think these polls you have set up are necessary, nor particularly helpful.. one of the reasons is that implicitly the questions are endorsing a long version of the page (if a part of the guideline isn't listed as "contested", does that mean it is endorsed?). Pmanderson has suggested replacing essentially everything with only a few sentences; I also think the content should be boiled down to only what is absolutely necessary. What I think we should be doing, is determining exactly what is necessary. Mlm42 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gotta run, so I'll respond in more detail tomorrow. As a quick note, these aren't intended to serve as a substitution for a discussion. For one, they are all based on the discussion which is already ongoing, and if any of the items happen to need further discussion, that can also be arranged. Nor are these options intended to establish the "final version"&mdash;after it is clear what has support and what doesn't, it would be easy to compile a new draft for further consideration. As things stand now, compiling such a draft from bits and pieces of heated (and often off-putting) banter is nearly impossible. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2011; 21:04 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm back :) Regarding a straightforward list of changes vs. one new draft proposal, as you've probably gathered from my yesterday's comment, I'm not a fan of the latter approach. The reasons for that are several. First, people who join the RfC later in the process would have a really hard time comparing the original wording with the wording of the draft. Some major changes would, of course, be obvious, but little stuff (like the "-iy" endings) can easily get lost. Second, it's impossible to incorporate some of the proposed changes into the draft; witness Option 6 of Proposal 1&mdash;its very inclusion is something that needs to be decided. Third, I have no confidence that some editors wouldn't go with the "after a day of !voting, we already have two voices in support; let's change the draft NOW" mantra again (sorry, I'm cynical like that). Fourth, having editors read/compare two drafts and the associated monstrous discussion isn't exactly the best way to attract broader input&mdash;Sussexonian's comment below is a good illustration.
 * All in all, people like seeing the proposed changes right away instead of having to dig for them on their own. That's what polls like this are all about&mdash;clearly identifying what's at stake. And the question of why something is at stake can be answered by looking at the discussion thread&mdash;but at least people will know what too look for.
 * This said, I understand your shock at seeing nine proposals with the total of about two dozen options :) Putting it up in that form would be overwhelming indeed. Remember, however, that it's a draft, and that I tried to include every suggestion made so far. Not every suggestion would make it to the final version, though. For example, judging by Pmanderson's continuous participation, I doubt he's serious about marking this guideline as an essay or historic, yet that's a suggestion he has not retracted, and I can't retract it for him, so it's included. You probably will weed out or edit some of your own suggestions as well, before the list goes live. And we can contact the rest of the editors to whom some of the suggestions have been attributed, so they can revise some of theirs, if they find it necessary. The end result would probably be half the size of the full list. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 13:51 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion: I noticed the link from this page Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_style_and_naming requesting input, but the talk page is so full of contributions from a very few people it is off-putting and it's impossible to find a place to comment. I just now read your sandbox page of proposals which could do with some simplification (leave out some of the questions until "stage 2"). If it is to be placed for users to add their 'votes', it would be good to remove or hide the long discussion mostly between 2-3 people first. Sussexonian (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I'm still learning with the whole RfC thing, and I guess I let the discussion run a bit wild. I assume you're talking about the proposals in Ezhiki's sandbox? Yes, if a new proposal is to be added, it would likely be placed before the big discussion from last week. Mlm42 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did mean Ezhiki's sandbox, and as I said, I think the questions should be simplified before going live. Sussexonian (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is now going on at WP:Romanization of Russian and various other places. It could be that the questions aren't needed. Sussexonian (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I've been involved with this RfC from the start, and by now even I have trouble keeping track of what discussions are going on where and where they are all headed. I'd say that the new threads that appeared in the past week should be added as new proposals, or no one (especially people joining in the middle of the process) would be able to figure out just what's going on with that RfC. Mlm, when you get back from your break, could you (as the person who started it and all) please make an executive decision as to how to proceed with this RfC? Right now the whole thing is a complete mess (which, as I was trying to point out from the very start, is not surprising when process isn't being adhered to).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2011; 20:28 (UTC)
 * I've made the "executive decision" to close the RfC; the discussion has moved on leaps and bounds beyond my initial question. The reason I started the RfC was to draw attention to the guideline, and begin a discussion about improving improving it by drawing in people who were previously uninvolved. Now that a handful of new people are actively involved in the discussion, I don't see the point of having the RfC anymore; details are often best worked out among a small group of editors anyway. Mlm42 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, way to pass the buck. OK then; it's your RfC after all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 24, 2011; 16:42 (UTC)

Pretty please?
Sigh.. collateral damage, anyone? Mlm42 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) Mlm42 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station
Hi Mark !,

I need help ! work cleaning up and updating all the information on the ISS page is stagnating with a lack of interest from knowledgeable and/or experienced editors. Please come help ! I need someone's help heckling, belittling, and lampooning my efforts. There is even a Canadian joke in there ! I was worried about that until I saw your an Ogre, which was a relief. So if you have nothing much to do between hibernations, I guarantee this will keep you more than busy.

Penyulap  talk 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, I left a reply note on my talkpage for you. Penyulap   talk 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark !,


 * I wish to sincerely thank you for fixing the 'freebie' edit I made. Regardless of past differences, I appreciate your help in making article better by fixing that. I give credit where it is due, and I am glad that you pay close attention to my editing, and correct mistakes. Thanks.


 * On a different subject, upon reading my initial invitation over again, hmmm, I'm wondering if I should have worded that differently... hmmm, what do you think ? Penyulap   talk 16:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Penyulap, thanks for the message; no hard feelings. Yes, I had forgotten exactly what you had said in your initial message, but looking back it is somewhat amusing.


 * I hope you have a good break from the ISS (see also Wikibreak); at over 3.6 million articles, Wikipedia's a huge place, so I hope you don't have any problems finding other topics that you want to contribute to. I'm not sure how many of Wikipedia's guidelines you've read (see List of guidelines), but editors are encouraged to be familiar with most of them (also, some of the essays are pretty funny, like this one or this one). All the best, Mlm42 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, dressed as spiderman, which I don't mind at all, I did help illustrate the problems that new users have in a very mainstream way, a situation which many senior editors expressed as a situation they could well relate to as they gave me advice, and certainly a situation that needs more thought, because for every one editor like myself who shall stick it out, many won't. It's not because they have nothing to offer, that's ridiculous, it's not because they don't want to assist, or are in any way not competent to do so. It's because there are serious cultural or systemic problems. That's not a good situation, not optimal, not preferred, not acceptable and should not be considered acceptable. Same as FA is not a destination. I'm now a little better able to assist some other beginners in overcoming these all too common problems, and contributing ideas on how we can fix such cultural and systemic problems. It would be worth doing over just for value the experience gives in helping other editors, I've done it already, so I can learn no more from it however. Anyhow, not everyone can see every problem. Which reminds me of the article, which is not as good as it could be if people found a better way to discuss issues on that talkpage. I have had immensely more success talking about the article in every OTHER place except the talkpage of the article. Finding people outside the ISS article community has been more productive and straightforward than 4 months of using the ISS talkpage. Seriously, I can't see the malfunctioning of the ISS talkpage as being all my own doing. If I encountered the same problems everywhere else, I'd be concerned it's just me. There is a saying 'If one or two people call you a horse, laugh, if everyone does it, buy yourself a saddle', I'm not saving up for a saddle, not after all the 'outside' discussions I've had. Penyulap   talk 14:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Penyulap. I've noticed (by viewing Special:Contributions/Penyulap) that you are still discussing the ISS page with other editors on their talk pages - including suggesting specific changes to the article . Is this an attempt to influence the ISS article while still being consistent with the statement you made at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708?


 * "If people found a better way to discuss issues on that talkpage." Perhaps you've seen the thread Talk:International_Space_Station This is what a productive talk page discussion looks like: Brad has pointed, briefly and concisely, to areas of improvement. Then Colds7ream addressed them in the article. Mlm42 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, I only just read this. Hey, is there some policy I am coming anywhere near close to on talking to other editors ? I'm not trying to fix up the article btw, I don't give a flying F about it at the moment, well, that might be a bit exaggerated, but hey, there are massive problems with it and I'm not about to point out a single one to anyone. I was just answering my messages, questions people had asked me, that kind of thing, plus being nice to newbies. Thats because I know better than anyone how bad it can be. Penyulap   talk 09:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

NCRUS - DAB populates places
Thanks for starting the vote on the category rename. I started another WP:NCRUS related vote at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July. It would simply mean to remove the "Dikson (urban-type settlement)"-rule and would result in Dikson, Russia by applying the general Wikipedia rules. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Set indices on populated places in Russia
Renaming proposed at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

China RfC
Is that better? feel free to improve it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for fixing it. If its a yes/no question then we should absolutely stick with "yes" and "no", keep it simple. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A while ago in the Talk:China discussions about how to deal with competing proposals for article naming, you suggested a kind of Instant run-off poll. I thought about that for a while and about how that might work. What do you think about this -> User:Metal.lunchbox/China title poll. It would need to be edited a little for greater neutrality and clarity, and of course we would have to come to an understanding on Talk:china about using such a poll and what the rules would be, but I think your suggestion has potential. Tell me if I'm crazy. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay.. I think you're crazy (kidding..). I see you've put a lot of work into that poll, but really, I'm not sure a lengthy poll is the way to go (especially since Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and many people think "Voting is evil".). My understanding of polls with multiple options is the following: 1) Multiple options are presented, clearly and concisely, 2) People state their opinions, in as much or as little detail as they prefer, and then 3) A closing admin comes by and sorts it all out.. if it's decided there is a consensus to do something, then that gets done. Otherwise, nothing happens. Generally, the more complicated it is for people to respond, the less likely they will, and the more difficult it is to ensure a consensus has actually been formed.


 * Also, I think asking people to decide on the opening sentences, as well as the titles of articles, is too much all at once. I think for the first step, there really are only three options: Keep "China" where it is, make it a disambiguation page, or redirect it to the PRC article. The other issues, such as what exactly will happen with the "Chinese civiliation" article, and whether the PRC article should get renamed to "China", can be dealt with later. But the first step is the most difficult one; the other things will be much easier to decide, once the "no change" / "disambig" / "redirect" decision is made. Sorry if this wasn't the answer you were hoping for. Mlm42 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I see your point. I think those three options should also take priority now . The opening sentences aren't meant to be a commitment, just a means of illustrating what the article might be about. As you have seen in the discussion there was much confusion about topics and titles. But I see how including those sentences does imply that they are part of the decision. It might be better to leave out the opening sentences. My rationale for promoting a vote with clearly stated preferences for clearly spelled out options, is that it is otherwise impossible to determine what it is that the people seem to actually support. So far the discussions, even about fairly concrete matters, like the last move proposal, were dominated by pretty abstract discussion. If you look through other move discussions the same thing seems to happen. The poll would facilitate making a decision by helping to clarify where people stand, especially in regards to preference. The poll would not be binding. If a poll could show that while it might not be everybody's first choice, a large majority of editors find a particular solution acceptable, that would be something we could build consensus on.

Oh and if it helps, I copied most of it from a similar dispute resolution effort over "Ireland". They figured out how to vote just fine, but they're mostly Irish so they're used to voting by preference. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian
Hi Mlm42. Because you participated at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian (permanent link), you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian. Administrator has reviewed the discussion and has opened a straw poll seeking clarification about several issues before he closes the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Space Stations working group
Hi there folks, just a quick enquiry as to whether or not anyone's actually using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Space stations working group? If we're still planning on running it as intended, can I suggest people pay a bit more attention to it, or, if not, it be merged back into the main project? Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Question
Now this is a simple question that I wish you to answer. The Republic of China has existed since the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 but retreated to Taiwan, after losing significant territory to the CPC, and has exsited on Taiwan ever since. The People's Republic of China established itself, after pushing the Republic of China off Mainland China, in 1949 and has existed on Mainland China ever since then. Which is the true China?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your use of the term "true China" makes your question a loaded question, so I won't answer. I will say that today, when most English-speaking people use the term "China", they are referring to the subject of the article "China". Mlm42 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just wanted your opinion that was all. It would have been interesting if you answered both are the true China. Because that is neutrality by not deciding which is the most right or current as both sides are right. But regardless thank you for answering my question.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIRPORTS Style guide template
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bristol Airport. -- Trevj (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)
Hi. Prompted by your proposal, I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports to avoid concerns over WP:POVFORK. I know you were proposing the merge to WikiProject Airlines but WikiProject Airports seemed more appropriate. There was no rationale given and apparently no other opinions expressed. -- Trevj (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ROC Talk page
I'm always amazed at the number of other editors whose advice to me when nice conversation isn't working, and I try something different, is to go back to being nice. What the hell will that achieve?

My goal in trying different approaches when one doesn't work is to actually move the conversation forward, and to try to get the recalcitrant editors to actually think about the impact of their behaviour. So far, being nice hasn't had any impact at all for me. With luck, a firmer approach might make someone else think a little bit more. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not necessarily about being "nice", but rather, being "civil". I guess it's possible to take a firmer approach without shouting or name calling. But in any case, it seems very difficult to get other editors to, broadly speaking, change their behaviour. A much more attainable goal, is to change their minds on content with reasonable arguments; and if that's impossible, then make arguments so strong that they appear unreasonable if they aren't convinced by them. Some editors have a knack for steering conversation away from the main points, if the main points aren't working out in their favour; the best response is to remain patient, and steer them back. The end goal is not to convince every single person to change their minds; it's to convince reasonable on-lookers that your side has stronger arguments. Mlm42 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

IP addresses
Re - I compared 175.159.193.30's contributions with mine. He or she actually voted on something else too (the CfDs nominated on 10 February). Given the number votes identical to mine (four out of six), would that be just a coincidence? Or is someone pretending that I'm abusing multiple accounts? Is there anything that I can do about it? It's getting silly. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I see essentially two possibilities: (1) It's a coincidence (different people sometimes care about the same topics..) and (2) You are using different IP addresses, and intentionally deceiving us about it. I find it very unlikely somebody is trying to set you up (as you appear to suggest). Schmucky has clearly latched on to you (since you have been so active) and decided you are not to be trusted, and so is assuming (2). For me, honestly, it's hard to tell which it is; you seem like a somewhat Wikipedia-savvy editor, and as such it's possible you know how to fool people.


 * On the other hand, I like to assume people have the best intentions, so I would generally work on the assumption that (1) is correct. One thing you could do to further advance your case, if you want to demonstrate you are not trying to deceive people: Disclose the previous IP addresses you have edited under. I think I asked you to do that some time ago, and you never did. Of course you're not obligated to do so; but you can see how if you don't, it will look like you have something to hide. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you posted a list on my wall. I read the contribution history of each of them and I didn't think I had used any of them. The problem is that I don't keep track of my own IP addresses. I can only tell from edit history. As for 175.159.193.30, I think it's co-incidence too. But given the fact that SchmuckyTheCat went around promptly to tag all of them, it appears a bit suspicious. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow you; are you suggesting that Schmucky is using that IP address to "frame" you? Again, this seems extremely unlikely. He was able to tag all of them so quickly, because he simply followed the contribution history of that IP address (just like you did).


 * And it shouldn't be that hard for you to list a few of your past IP addressed. Just think of particular pages you edited, look at that page's edit history, and find your edit. Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Now look what you made me do!
New note on my talk page

Note that I'm only pointing this out to you, not to "Penyulap", who incidentally strikes me as a real kook.

Here's the thing that I've come to realize: it's a tremendous waste of time to worry about what people say on talk pages, or in the Wikipedia namespace. What's worse is that it's actually detrimental to the Encyclopedia itself. The result, of course, is that I largely don't edit any longer, but... there's really nothing wrong with that. If more people would stop being so concerned about the inane things being "discussed" on talk pages then... well, there would be a ton less editing. However, consider the real impact that such involvement on Wikipedia actually has. Take a look at various archives, and see how often the same subjects are argued over time and time again, and how it's the same people bickering back and forth over varying subjects at different points in time.

Once you (and others, not really "you" specifically) quit trying to impose your will on some tiny corner of Wikipedia, then things will naturally straighten themselves out (it's easiest to see this happening with old "current events" articles, which often end up being fantastic pieces of writing after the typical brouhaha surrounding them dies down). Until then, if you don't like having to man the gates against the barbarians who don't share your own opinion on something then... well, that's just too bad. You've made your bed, now you get to sleep in it. :) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note; I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I didn't mean to upset you by leaving a message on your talk page.. I guess I felt like I should say something regarding your message apparently directed at me. For the record, I really haven't been following the ISS talk page lately.. just noticed that massive pointless discussion, and was saddened by the amount of editor time being wasted (as you have pointed out).. which is why I said what I said.


 * But you're right, it's been a while since I've done any real editing.. I'd like to think I'm helping others reach consensus in the one or two discussions I am currently engaged in (and hence reduce the amount of wasted editor time), but maybe everybody thinks that. Mlm42 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that most of the people engaged in discussions on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace have the same outlook as yourself, that "I'm helping others reach consensus". I felt essentially the same way, back about a year ago (or whenever it was that I last spent any significant time here). I just suddenly kind of realized, 'you know what? There's nothing really being accomplished here...' Once I realized that I kind of did a little thought experiment with myself, thinking 'OK, if I just let his all go, what really happens?' So, some person comes along and edits the article (OMG!), and now there's a bunch of stuff that either a) reads like crap, or b) that I don't agree with (or both). I simply realized that either or both eventualities truly are no big deal.


 * Take this engvar thing, for example. I come and read the article and am like "wtf is with this british style english?", so I go and change it. Colds, or yourself, or whoever, reverts while screaming about engvar... 10 years later and 10,000 editors later... is either of those edits going to make any significant impact? I doubt it. Something will happen eventually (probably while and after the ISS de-orbits) and basically the entire article will be rewritten anyway, and likely by completely different people. So... whatever. I have real things to worry about, you know?


 * In the meantime, I kinda rewrote the AdBrite article just a couple of days ago (restructured it, to be more accurate). It only took like 10 minutes, but it made me feel like a real contributor again even if only for a second. If that's the only edit I make in the next month (or two!) then I'll be happy, and I think that I've been much more productive than (I'd guess) 90% of the "editors" with the highest edit counts over the same period of time. Overall, I'm not upset at anything or anybody here (including yourself) any longer. I'm simply trying to avoid being pulled back into the mire and muck that is the talk page/Wikipedia namespace here, you know? I get upset once I start actually reading some of that, but then I go back to doing real things and it's all better again. :)
 * Regards, — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan move discussion and IP editors
I think we should just ignore all IP editors from Hong Kong (as we have at Talk:China and other places). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Animals in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ROC --> Taiwan
I figured since you were the one who originally posted the move, you might have a better idea of when the RM is closing, because generally RMs close in 7 days but there have been many complaints, especially by the opposition, about that being too short because many might be unaware about the move and so forth, so, I know you're not in charge of the RM or such but I was curious and didn't want to post it on Talk:ROC because I can just see the outcry now, would it stay 7, which means it would end tomorrow, the 24th, or would we be more likely to extend it to as long as some had suggested, 60 days? Thanks.  JPECH 95  00:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect this one will stay open for a while. After 7 days has passed, if some passing admin believes that a consensus has been reached, then he/she can close the discussion (I'd say this is fairly unlikely). Otherwise, it will probably get re-listed. Basically, we just have to be patient until an admin who's brave enough comes forward and sorts it all out. If too much time passes and it still hasn't been closed, then we could always seek out help at the relevant notice boards. Mlm42 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Because I can understand why it wouldn't be 7 days, that's enough time, even for supporters, if they didn't know about it. I just don't want this to be open forever and go on as it is, in a sence, starting to now (in my opinion).  JPECH 95  02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse! You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
 * A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
 * Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!