User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Writ Keeper! Thank you for your contributions. I am Abhishek191288 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Your request for rollback
Hi Writ Keeper. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

October 2011
Thanks for catching this edit! I was just looking for that revision, but couldn't find it due to the preceding revisions within. Really appreciate your help. MegastarLV (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, any time. Writ Keeper (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My first! Thanks so much! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol
Hi Writ Keeper. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Teabulla, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. A7 is not for products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. At the time I flagged it for deletion, the article was describing a tea shop in Manila (not the tea itself), so I thought it fell under the companies and organizations clause. The article has since been changed (after I flagged it, but before you declined), and the sentence talking about the shop has been removed.  Was your judgement based on the new revision, and if so, was mine appropriate based on the original version of the page?  I had a little doubt about placing the tag, but it seemed to me that a shop was enough of a company.  Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a mention of it also being  the name of a shop  in  the first  sentence, but  the body  of the article was all about  the product. It  will  get  deleted anyway  some way  or another. If you  haven't already  done so,  you  might  like to  PROD it  for non  notable product. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST members update
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:


 * Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
 * SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
 * Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
 * Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
 * XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Blackbeard
If your edit notice is accurate, you already have the Blackbeard page watchlisted. I just wanted to thank you for your time, and to let you know that I've responded there. Have a good one. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update
Hi Writ Keeper,

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: User:Sailendra.dalai90
Hello Writ Keeper, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Sailendra.dalai90, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've moved it to the correct userspace. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I suppose that would be a better solution. Thanks for letting me know (even if it is just an automated message)! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WHAT!
Did I do that? Greg  Heffley   23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It said you did. It was just a page with that title and nothing but gibberish in the body.  I thought it was really weird when I tagged it after looking at your contribs... could your account have been compromised? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * May I see the article again? Greg  Heffley   20:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin; only an admin can restore deleted pages. I only tagged it for deletion.  Bwilkins is the admin who actually deleted it; he might be able to help you, or you could try this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted.; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to drop a note here and explain in more detail. The notices about the auction don't generally show notability about the company, although it does back up the auction claims and would only be considered a non-notable event or routine article. All you really need is just one link to a reliable source that talks about the company itself rather than it almost closing and it should be ready to be posted. As far as the company website goes, we can't count that as a reliable source because it's released by the company. Hope this helps!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I wasn't sure about the notability of it myself, really.  I've found a few articles in the Washington Post that are more direct; could you possibly take a look at them and let me know if they'll cut it? (They're not free, but you can see an abstract of them @ washington post: .  Both go into some detail about the history of the restaurant, but I'm a little worried that at the end of the day, they could be considered reviews.
 * The biggest problem with these is that they're hidden behind a paywall and can't be seen by the random person. The articles look like they could've gone either way, especially the first one. But since you have to pay to see them, we can't use them as a source for the article. A good thing to try would be to ask the restaraunt if they have any articles and then look through those to see if there's anything good. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Well, we can use them as sources, so that's not really an issue. I've gotten the full text of the articles from a free trial of highbeam.com (I think that's the site anyway), so there's that.  I'll probably try to incorporate them in the article tomorrow, and we'll see how it comes out. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update
Hi Writ Keeper,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!


 * 1) ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
 * 2) CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're very welcome! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up to 3O
On the 7 World Trade Center's talk page right after your comment I left a new comment to lay out my objection more plainly.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology
Are you still willing to offer your good offices on this? I think we've reached an impasse - I think my version is dandy, Carlaude thinks exactly the same, but different. It's settling into a revert war. We need to break the cycle. Where do we go next?

The squabble is essentially over two competing paragraphs, which can both be seen here.PiCo (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment again.
 * I have all the RSs needed and more, but PiCo is just trying to bully me by reverting everything that isn't what he himself writes.
 * PicCo includes his pet theory as if many agree with Wright but he has shown no one else agrees with Wright, nor even discussed Wright's text in newer publications.
 * Furthermore he has commpletely deleted my sources (and everything I have written.)
 * It also doesn't help his comments any to write in ceaseless condescension. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 05:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to continue contact; indeed, I would've done it before this had I not gone out of town not too long after I provided the 3O. I'll see what I can do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:


 * 1) We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
 * 2) Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion award

 * Thanks, Bryant! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion?
Hello, do you have a minute to look at this Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist) and tell me if I'm out in left field? Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look when I get the chance. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked at it, and it looks like a relatively straightforward delete, although there were a looot of links to wade through. So, no, you're not out in left field at all.  As an aside, though, I do agree with Bmusician's decline of the speedy deletion; this article is a pretty solid example of one that doesn't meet the (strict) criteria for speedy deletion, even though it may be clear that it's not notable enough for an article.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning on the speedy delete was that there was no credible claim of significance. A copy/paste biography of the artist claiming significance is not in my opinion credible. But that's that! Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

personal note
Writ - did see your last note on Steven's page. Thought it best not to use his talk page for continuing. But you've been kind and patient in your remarks, so I thought I'd add a little to why the matter of rules and their misapplication has disturbed me so. The poem thing was only confirmation of the problems I've seen. The real substance was a lengthy, complex BLP discussion in which I have had to stand by and watch a man's personal and professional reputation maligned and viciously attacked with the intent to cause harm (the WP article has actually caused real harm to him). I did what I could, but I was one against the many. And the many (though it is private information and I will not source it) are an organized group of editors who began their assault on the subject and continue to wage it with the sole purpose of doing harm to the subject. They employ WP rules to the advantage of doing that, not out of any intent to be accurate. They impose a tyranny of consensus, and simply bully anyone else aside. If you think I'm hyping this, consider they are among the same groups that squashed the Smithsonian's Cross-roads exhibit a few years back. If you think about it, any well-organized fringe group can do this, using literal interpretations of rules, consensus majorities and a bit of manipulation. In this case the second-sources they boast of being gold (media articles in the NYT, W.Post, et al.) actually originated with one of the editors of the BLP - and he bragged about this in the original version I attempted to revise. Anyway, through the weeks of trying to end this malicious attack, person continued to be harmed (even had one of his books pulled from publication by a major company that wanted to avoid the controversy started by WP), and continues to this day to suffer these consequences. There was nothing I could do to prevent this, under Wiki's rules. Even the BLP rules about living persons say that it is the challenger who must prove the case. Though I did prove it, it was ignored. More to the point is the fact that the rule, if you think about it, insists that the harm done continue until the proof against doing it is certain and has consensus. Any real world appraisal would say one cease immediately the potential of doing harm until the case for doing it is proven. Not the other way around. But that is not the case at Wiki. I've been charged, in the process of trying to prevent the damage, with vandalism, edit warring, NLTs, and everything else you can think of. Even my attempt to get the matter mediated was shot down with caustic remarks, and the rf for mediation was quickly closed without action. It goes on. But it opened my eyes to how the very things that are meant to keep Wiki honest and organized, can be perverted and twisted to serve personal agenda's. The irony is, that one can't even take something like I experienced to RFC or the village pump. in the former, their is no subject category for even talking about WP policies and their weaknesses; in the latter one would be accused of "shopping" - I was, by one of the parties in the dispute. So, this isn't just a matter of 'sour grapes' or 'don't let this experience discourage you'. There are fundamental flaws in how WP works. And there are people who have no compunction about using those flaws to their own advantage. Anyone who tries to stand up to what is the correct and decent thing, no matter what the rules say, doesn't stand a chance; doesn't even have a slingshot to work with. I do much thank you for your calming notes, though. I do know there are some here who are conscientiously trying to contribute, and wish them all the best. Red Slider (note: I put the four tildes here, but it doesn't seem to translate into my user name) 71.193.56.126 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just the sad truth that any system can, and will, be abused, and by its nature, Wikipedia is conducive to such abuses, no matter what we try to do about it. With the high visibility that Wikipedia possesses, such abuse can be a powerful weapon that can be easily and indiscriminately wielded.  As I said, I'm sorry to see you, or any good-faith editor for that matter, go, but I don't doubt your story, and I totally understand your reasons for leaving.  I still think that Wikipedia, with all its very real issues, is a net good, and so I'll continue trying to make it better in what few ways I can, but it can be hard sometimes to not come to your conclusions about it.  Again, all the best to you; perhaps we'll talk again someday (maybe without even knowing it!) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (btw, as for your name, you're probably just not logged in?)


 * While I don't plan to participate as an editor any more, with you permission I'd like to keep this conversation going a little. Of the hundred or so contacts I've made in two separate incidents, you and steven are the only two I've encountered who seem to understand the problems and also have concerns about abuses. I also think WP can be a very good thing, but at the moment the thing it is has become dangerously manipulated. I also agree that any system can and will be abused. Where I'd respectfully disagree is the suggestion that Wiki is conducive to such abuse "no matter what we try to do about it." If I felt that, I wouldn't be here discussing it with you.  I think there are many things that can be done to prevent abuse and keep WP from collapsing into a heap of self-interested feudalism. To illustrate that, I will restrict my remarks to only one problem area (one I know well); the subject of BLPs that do harm to a living person (though I think these concerns equally apply to dead persons as well).


 * Of all the intents and expectation of applying rules regarding BLPs, the subject of doing harm is in a class by itself. I've noticed the injunction to "not do harm" mentioned in some fashion throughout WP, not only in BLP-specific discussions and venues. So, there is good suggestion that WP, as a collective undertaking, also has broad concerns about this matter. But if one looks at the BLP policies governing BLPs (which I will deliberately not source here, leaving that to those who knows these things much better than I), harm is mentioned, but not given the special treatment it requires - and therefore is wide open for the kinds of abuse I've encountered. Harm done through a BLP is in a class of its own and urgently needs a separate set of rules from those of ordinary matters.


 * To begin, even the fact of whether harm might done or not in a particular case is left to consensual process. People said things like "WP is not causing any harm in suggesting someone doesn't have a valid Phd when he says he does", or, "That's the subject's concern, he hasn't come forward to complain or defend himself," and things like that. Those assertions, when used to stymie a complaint that harm is being done, are easily abused. What needs to happen is that consensus must be removed from the initial judgement that harm is, or can be done, in a particular complaint. An unimpeachable special committee, qualified to determine from the outset if a particular instance constitutes a serious potential for doing harm, must handle this matter. My suggestion would be that this committee not even handle the matter in open discussion. The complainant simply goes to them and cites the BLP and the places where they feel serious personal, professional or other harm is being done. No arguments are presented. The committee then goes and looks at the BLP and decides if the complaint is justified. What they do, before anything else happens, is decide if the instance falls into the 'special harm class' and now must be treated under a very different set of rules than governs ordinary discussions.  I'll give a few examples of where present rules are inadequate and subject to abuse:


 * 1. BLP policy currently indicates that the one who revises material must prove the case. Generally this makes sense. But in the case of harm it is exactly backward. The injunction against doing harm (because of its more than academic consequences) should require that those supporting statements causing harm should need to prove that 1)that the statements doing harm are of sufficient importance and central to the biography to warrant their inclusion; and, 2) that they are supported (proven) almost to a certainty. When damage to the personal, professional, fiscal reputation is what is at stake, the shoe needs always to be on the foot of the one who is proposing that the damage is necessary and its support is verified (that almost all doubt has been removed and there is no other rational explanation that would mitigate the interpretation). By asking the one who suggests harm is being done to prove the harmful material is false, is to promote the continuation of harm while the matter is in discussion. Rather, the harmful material needs to be removed immediately, while the discussion is ongoing. This also requires the side that would defend the harmful materials to show that it is necessary and valid to do so, rather than simply trying to undermine the challenger's attempt to end the harm.  If, at the end of the day, it is found that the material is both necessary and proven, it can always be put back in.  But, you can't unring the bell if it continues ringing throughout the proceedings. What I'm suggesting is that undoing potential harm should not be held hostage to convincing those who support doing it (esp. where the attackers are doing it for more than academic reasons.) In the case I dealt with, even the necessity for harm was in serious doubt. The biography, if you notice, had very little biography in it. Its central item was, still is, a single "Controversy" section with two subparts that do harm to the person.  The rest, the biography, is so spare that one can hardly notice that the subject had much of a life, let alone had a robust scientific career, published 12 books and numerable research papers, etc. Contrasting with other biographies of people with similar vitae, the BLP barely exists, save for the accusations being made. That should tell us something about the rules and where they fail. But, under the present set of BLP rules it doesn't matter;


 * 2. After determining that there is an overwhelming necessity in retaining the harmful material, the question turns to what constitutes proof that it is valid. As mentioned, for this class, validity should not be decided as a matter of proving the case that the claims that cause harm are false, but on the case that there is any doubt about them at all. Because of the grave consequences we need to know that it is the case that someone, in this example, actually didn't get their Phd. as claimed.  So the matter of sourcing the evidence comes into play in quite a different manner than the normal hierarchies of sourcing evaluation. News articles, even from established media such as NYT or W.Post lose substantial value when the matter is one of real validity rather than validty based on general authority and reputation. Newspapers, even the best of them, have political, social, advertising and other agenda that may account not only for the credibility of the report, but for which side of a matter they wish the reader to arrive at conclusions.  The quotes they use may be accurate, but who they choose to get them from may have unknown prejudices involved, and on examination may not be at all as credible as our rules would suggest. Articles in the NYT and other papers not only may be colored to the paper's own inclinations, but are often unvetted despite our naive assumptions based on movies about deep throats and glimpses of editorial boardrooms. Even quoted authorities may have agenda which cause them to hide the real agenda or even lie about the facts. In the instance I know, a university Vice Chancellor is held up (as are the newspapers) as a gold-standard second source. In fact, the VC being quoted in a paper is really a tertiary source. But beyond that, there is good reason to believe he is covering for the university, which is is primary job, and not to be controverted by some factual matter. Indeed, A VC or Chancellor's responsibility to cover for their institution may have legal reasons for doing so that make factual accounts secondary.  But, under the BPL and Sourcing rules, people are free to hold the VC and the newspaper as 'gold standard' second sources. "He speaks for the university and, therefore, can be taken as correct." says one editor. The fact is, his authority as a university official does not indicate any special responsibility, expertise, understanding or credibility about the matter at hand; a fact that may be entirely swept aside by our sourcing rules. On the other side, the written historical record contained in the library research archives, along with the archivist's statement (who does have bona fide expertise in the matter) is dismissed by the same rules.  When harm is at stake, our rules of sourcing and evidence can and should be revised. We need standards which reflect the real state of affairs and grave consequence that may issue from failing to take note of them. It is a state of affairs that must remove all doubt on the one side, and require only rational and reasonable support on the other.  Preventing harm should not be reduced to some popularity contest of consensus in a source-fight;


 * 3 There are many other ways in which the matter of harming individuals through BLPs can and must be dealt with as a special class, apart from all other WP engagements.  Conflict of interest, for example, should come into play when an editor has been involved, publicly, in opposition to the BLP subject or their work in other venues and forums. Where it can be shown that an editor belongs or participates in opposition groups, or has a personal axe to grind; that should, under special rules for harmful BLPs, be considered the equivalent of introducing doubt about the matter;


 * 4 The ordinary WP processes by which such matters are presently handled is up for considerable revision as well. In the instance I experienced, every attempt to find a neutral zone in which to consider the case as harmful to a living person, and standards of doubt which would reasonably require immediately cessation of the harm, pending review, was inaccessible. Every shifted argument became and excuse to move the matter to another discussion page; yet when the side wishing to prevent the harm moved things, it was accused of "shopping". RFCs on the matter (general or specific) were closed and shut down, request for mediation was closed and denied, the village pump rules excluded the matter, and charges of 'vandalims', NLTs, edit-warring and such were raised to keep me busy and on the defense in replying to them. The entire process was stacked in favor of the status quo. This might work fine for purely academic questions. But it argues strongly in favor of observing that WP does all that it can to perpetuate harm being done, rather than in trying to prevent it.  Again, a single place with an unimpeachable group of senior administrators who can deal with cases of harmful BLPs in their entire scope would go a long way to shutting down the abuses and bringing the stated WP intention of avoiding doing harm in line with the actual mechanisms to do that.  If one looks at how WP presently handles this matter, the best that could be said is that their statements on the subject are disingenuous.  Hard to come to any other conclusion;

All of this intense examination is to say, no matter what people have tried to do in the past, there are very good solutions and they haven't tried hard enough. Not that the few solutions I've suggested above are the best or near complete; but that they can be devised, and do much better at protecting BLP subjects from unwarranted attack than what we have. WP can be a good thing, at least a much better thing than it is, I've no doubt. But that it hasn't tried hard enough is equally obvious. It has people running loose and destroying its initial reputation and value. I think it time WP stopped defending the way it works and look at what is actually happening and put an end to it - a better end than its present system suggests is possible. I won't even guess how/if that is to be done. Given the procedural problems it has in just dealing with instances of abuse, I'd wager getting changes to prevent the abuse in the first place is a monumental undertaking. One I don't really have the time or the skill-set to do. I'll close with a Santayana quote that I once amended to read, "Those who haven't learned history are bound to repeat it; but, those who only know history are equally doomed to repeat it." Thanks for your indulgence, Writ Keeper. I hope I haven't unduly imposed on your time and attention. Much obliged.
 * (placeholder; will reply when I get a chance)) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No need, Writ, unless there are more things you'd like to talk about. My remarks were just FYI. Glad you are doing what you do for WP. Some sanity is better than none :) Redslider (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Freaking 3O sniper
I was deep into studying and researching Talk:Fine_print with a view to giving a 3O when you, you, you ... sniped it from me. I hope it freaking breaks your keyboard, rassinfrassing dadgnabin upstart . (In all seriousness, thank you very, very much for all the work you're doing at 3O. Keep it up!) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)



TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Heh, ya gotta be quicker on the draw, old man! ;) Thanks for the cookie; I only had one other in my cookie jar and it was getting lonely. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unhappy (?) with Estelle text
Hi Writ! Do you think you could expand your already considerable kindness just a bit more and have another look at that Estelle talk? The other editor wants to keep me engaged in some personal debate over terminology which I now find superfluous. Looks to he like h/s won't give up unless we use the exact term h/s wants. Could you please ask h if h/s is unhappy with the current text (which I think is excellent now) and what h/s would like to see improved if so? The talk needs to concern itself with that now, and I've had it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Howe
Hello, once again. I was wondering if I could get your advice on the discussion going on over with the Mark Howe article? I am not trying to say that what is stating is true or not, but not verifiable per Wikipedia standards. I think that he is taking this a little to personally, and not following WP:V or WP:NOR guidelines. I have tried to find verifiable sources to support his version, but have seemed to fail. Thanks. --UnQuébécois (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Quebecois. I'll take a look.  This strongly reminds me of something Jimbo posted in teh verifiability not truth debate; lemme see if I can dig up a diff. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:10, 8 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) 16:10, 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!

Firearm Cartridges
ATTN: Writ Keeper:

The text of your complaint smacks of being nothing more than a boilerplate. I do not know what a "verbal discourse" is and I do not actually care. I spent many hours correcting hundreds of extremely serious actual factual errors. And, I presented references where anyone who would bother could easily verify the voracity of my changes, corrections, deletions, definitions, etc. Then you blithely disregarded, dismissed, and deleted my effort in its entirety, evidently, based upon the recommendation of a computer algorithm.

As it stands, this page contains many factual errors including those that perpetrate dangerous ignorance. Obviously, it was written by a person or persons with such a superficial understanding of the subject that they simply made it up as they went along, adding error after error. I did essentially nothing other than to correct those errors, properly define words and terms, add additional useful information, etc.

Based upon this experience, it would be very easy for me to believe that Wikipedia does not care about the accuracy of the information it presents.

As that text now exists, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it must be deleted in its entirety because it presents flatly false and misleading information of many types — not one significant paragraph or photograph caption is immune from these problems and at least one entire significant discussion is entirely bogus. Therefore, anyone reading that page and trusting any information contained therein will gain nothing but erroneous beliefs. Therefore, as a recognized authority on this subject, I demand that this discussion be deleted in its entirety.

And, if this is how this organization treats contributors, please be so kind as to remove my user name, I have better things to do and better places to find factual information. (Based upon this one subject, which I know very deeply, I must assume that any subject that I do not know contains equally false and erroneous information, so why would I ever want to refer to Wikipedia for information of any kind — only a fool would assume that information on any other subject was accurate or waste more time trying to improve something after being treated so dismissively.)

Sincerely Yours,Fundamental Motivation (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was a bit puzzled how to word it, so I'm sorry that "verbal discourse" is the best I could come up with; it really isn't terribly descriptive of what I meant. The point is that a lot of what you wrote was unnecessarily detailed and in a non-encyclopedic style, particularly the part about Brandon Lee; Wikipedia is not supposed to have sarcasm and the like in its articles (besides, that kind of thing would go in the article about Brandon Lee, not the generic article about cartridges).
 * As for the factual accuracy of your additions, well, I did my best to put in the changes of yours that were good, and asked assistance here for people who know more than I do about the topic (sadly, it's not the most active project). If you want to put back any of the purely factual corrections, go ahead (given that you have sources for anything that needs it).  If you're serious about deleting the article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion (but, somehow, I think that you're not serious).  Keep in mind that, on the Internet, we have no way of knowing who you are; you can easily say that you're a recognized authority on firearm cartridges, and so can I, and so can anyone else, whether we are or not. So we can't exactly take you on your word that you're an expert and just swallow what you post without question.  Everyone gets reverted sometimes.  It's not the end of the world, and it doesn't mean we don't respect people's contributions.
 * Finally, if you really want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to have to work collaboratively with people, so please put your righteous indignation hat away. Believe it or not, we are all on the same side here.  I'm sorry the message I wrote on your page didn't meet your approval; I'm certainly not perfect in writing them, but there's really no reason to go around blustering because of it.  (also, if your editing times are to be believed, you spent just above one hour on this, not many, but that's not conclusive or really relevant, I suppose.) If you have an issue with what I did and actually want to fix it, start a discussion on the material on the article's talk page, and we can talk about it.  Otherwise, do something else; I'm sure there are better things you can do with your time.  Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Writ Keeper: I added various reference sources where you could easily verify the voracity of my factual corrections. Toward providing my bona fides, what else can I do? If some private way exists to provide my pertinent resume information to you and, if that would make any difference, I am happy to do so. Y seem to have restored the discussion of firearms terminology claiming that it is misleading, which is utter and complete nonsense that stems from the writer or writers involved being ignorant of the correct terminology; my discussion contained factually accurate information. As that page now stands it is so chocked full of potentially dangerous and misleading information (refer to the actual causes of Brandon Lee's death — ultimately that the people involved did not know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge) I am quite serious about either correcting or entirely deleting the discussion. I have just done so. I want to apologise for anything untoward I have suggested here or otherwise, I am very confused by all of this.Fundamental Motivation (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens to all of us. Wikipedia can be a very confusing place, especially if you're just starting out.  I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but when I get a chance, I'll look over your edits and do some style copyediting if it's necessary.  Thanks for understanding; I might've gotten a little short myself, and reverting *all* your changes might've been too much, so I'm partly at fault, too. Just as a general point: saying things like "it's entirely too complicated to talk about here" is what I meant when I said "verbal discourse;" it makes it sound like you're directly addressing the reader, which isn't really recommended.  But don't worry about it; just do what you do, and like I say, I'll take a copyediting pass over it, to see if anything needs adjusting.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've taken a look, and it looks like we have a problem. We need *many* more references; nearly the entire article is unsourced.  The only sections that have sources are the lede and the "History" section.  Do you think you could find sources for your additions, and perhaps some other parts of the article? EDIT: It has just occurred to me that you might consider the "See also Cartidges of the World, various articles..." as references. These aren't sufficient as references; they aren't specific enough about where the information is.  Look at this article for a guideline on citations.  Let me know if you need any help, especially with the tags; I'd be happy to help you with those, and it makes the article much clearer. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad and Telangana
Hi, We have a dispute here. You were involved in similar dispute between us here. Since you are familiar with the topic, I invite you help resolve this dispute. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is a good place to put these violations?
(redacted; moved to user's talk page) (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse
Hi Writ! Glad to see you lending a hand. As requested on the "Your hosts" page, it'd be wonderful to have people who are answering questions (hosts) participate in all areas that the hosts are asked to participate in per that host page. Two things I'd LOVE help with specifically: inviting people and when you are finished answering a question on the Teahouse page, it'd be awesome if you'd leave a Teahouse Talkback on the editors page. These are all necessities during (and honestly, beyond) the pilot phase of this project, and is very important in us tracking metrics to judge the projects successes, or failures. If this is going to be an issue, feel free to let me know! Thanks again for participating, you're doing an awesome job :) Sarah (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci

 * De rien! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Hi WK! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:
 * First, declare your Hostness! Add yourself to the Host page! This page is where new editors and your fellow hosts can learn about you and reach out. By signing up here you declare that you know how to serve up a great cup of tea. Add yourself here.


 * Learn more about your responsibilities as a host. Teahouse hosts have certain responsibilities during this pilot. If you feel you can't meet them, perhaps a host role isn't for you during this important pilot.
 * Invite new users with our invite guide. Aside from answering questions, the most important thing we need you to do as a host is to invite new users. Please follow these steps and invite as many as you can to experience the Teahouse. Also, please document your experience in the spreadsheet link provided on that page!
 * Visit the tips page. The tips page provides you some basic tips on how to engage with visitors at the Teahouse. We have a special way of doing things - unlike other areas of Wikipedia! (Such as greeting new editors with a simple "Hi!" and being as easy to understand and friendly as possible.)
 * Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!
 * To visit the IRC channel: (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse guests
Hi! Thanks for helping move guests at the Teahouse. I tended to leave one guest at the bottom, maybe so new guests don't feel that something went wrong when their profile didn't look like the others, or maybe so they didn't feel lonely! Anyway, that was my process, do with it what you will :) heather walls (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that idea in principle, but in this instance, it was messing up the page format. It happens whenever column 1 is longer than column 2; the page places the lower selection of unmoved guests at the bottom of column 2, regardless of the length of column 1.  In this case, column 1 was significantly longer than column 2, which caused the bottom entry of column 1 to visually merge with the unmoved guest.  Moving the guest up to column 2 seemed the easiest way to fix it. :/ Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True! I wasn't aware that this was happening at that moment. As I have been the only one moving guests, I didn't bother to pass on all of this info. Thanks for making a note and making it easier for everyone. heather walls (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Script question
Hey Writ! Thanks again for all the great work you've put into the Teahouse scripts. I do have one question. With the invite template script, I'm not a big fan of having my signature and the extra verbiage ("I and the other hosts...) outside of the template. Is there a way I can modify that? Or should I just keep using my original cut and paste method? Thanks! Sarah (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just take it out. I had thought it was weird that we're not signing invites, and then I thought it was weird to just have the sig sitting there alone under the template, so things kinda spiraled out of control.  I had actually meant to ask about the extra stuff there, but it got lost in the mix somehow. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took it out. Now it's just the template. Remember to clear your cache to get the latest version.  For future reference, I also added variables to make it easier to change the message to whatever you want.  if you go to the script's page, you'll see lines in green towards the bottom; these will give you directions on what to change.  Basically, you copy the source into your own user subpage (make sure the name of the subpage ends in .js!), change the message according to those instructions, save the page, replace the "User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js" on your common.js page with the path to the subpage you just created, save that, and clear your cache.  The new message will then take effect. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Writ! I appreciate your effort, however, this is how the template originally looked and how I prefer it to look (perhaps I'm the only one though, but...):

The signature is IN the template. I hope this helps! Thanks again. Sarah (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. I'll add that into the next version of the teahouseUtility script (I also plan on adding a check for other invitations before posting the invite).  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My question posted yesterday on the Teahouse page

 * Hey, Gareth! Can you tell us what browser you're using, and which version it is? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

................................other advisors postings............................


 * Other recent changes include: the hidden navbox, and the div closures for the page get wiped out regularly, perhaps when the questions are archived. heather walls (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your advice and help. I have been struggling with using Internet Explorer 8 up to now. Also, been unable to get much speed out the editing/show preview/show changes/save page sequence – and that's putting it mildly..! Tonight, I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox. Wow! My aged PC is "on fire" – it's lightening. Just tried your , AND IT WORKED. Kindest regards to you all, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thought you might not have seen this.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see it, but you're welcome! I figured that you were using some variety of IE even before I asked; I had just wanted to be sure. Glad to hear that you like Firefox; it's what I use, too, and it's great!  Much better than IE, trust me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse utility script
Writ, great that someone can write scripts. Query on this one, it doesn't appear to work on user pages that I create i.e. where I'm the first person to talk to that user. Perhaps because it's tied to the move menu and that doesn't work on new pages because there is nothing to move? NtheP (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I realized this issue a few days ago, but it kinda got put on a back burner. Just finished another script I was working on, so I'll work on this now.  (What I wouldn't give to be an admin right now, so that I could delete my test account's talk page to use as a testing ground...) Thanks for the feedback! (And just fyi; that menu isn't just the page move menu; if you pull it open on a user page, it has all sorts of useful links.  I never realized this because I used to only open it on mainspace articles, where the only option is "Move"; I only found out about all these other cool options when I was researching for this script.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so apparently those neat features were a user script that I had installed forever ago and forgotten about. Anyway, the Utility has been updated; it should work on nonexistent pages now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, script works on new user talk pages and existing user pages but not new user pages (not really an issue as it's designed for talk pages). I don't have anything else on that menu except move though, even on user pages or user talk pages. Perhaps you've another gadget installed. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The script that adds handy buttons is: WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/User tabs. Very useful, once you remember that you've installed it. ;)  The Teahouse Utility seems to work for me from a nonexistent user page; are you sure it's not for you? Is the menu not showing up at all, or is it just not posting the templates when you click on it? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * not showing up at all on nonexistent user pages. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, *that* should do it. If it doesn't, I might collapse into a ball and cry myself to sleep. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to cry, it works :-) NtheP (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

user
Although you marked this user talk page as a page created by your script for a non-existent user, it seems that your script has actually created an account, because User talk:NaN does not show the "This account is not registered" message. There is something odd about it, though, because clicking "User rights" at the bottom of Special:Contributions/NaN produces this, with no date/time of account creation, though those displays normally look like this. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's weird... for reference, the script I was testing was this jQuery call: $.post(getSubmitURL, {wpTextbox1 : invitationBody, wpSection : "new", wpEditToken : mw.user.tokens.get('editToken'), wpStarttime : timestamp, wpEdittime : timestamp, wpSummary : invitationSectionTitle}, function{ alert("Invitation posted!"); }); where the getSubmitURL function had a bug in it that returned the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:NaN?action=submit&section=new The bug involved an extra + sign when formatting the user name, which caused it to return "NaN" (i.e. not a number) rather than the user name. I'm not sure how this would've had anything to do with creating an account...can you tell, or point me to someone who knows more about this than I do?  I guess this is what happens when you play with fire... :( Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VPT is probably the best place to ask. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was making a thread there as you wrote; thanks for your help! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
You're welcome! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I need a better signature
I need a good symbols on my signature and I want my whole signature to be bold.--20thtryer (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, to make your signature bold, the firs tthing you need to do is enable wiki markup. On the "My preferences" page, right underneath the text box where you can type in your signature, there's a checkbox that is labeled "Treat the above as wiki markup." Check this box.  Once you do that, you can do all sorts of neat formatting tricks, in the same way you'd format text on Wikipedia.  To make text bold, surround it with three single quotes on either side. So, when you type in Bold text, it will come out looking like this: Bold text  A thing to keep in mind is that, if you check the wiki markup box, you have to manually add links to your user page and user talk page; you can do this with a piped link.  Piped links look like this:  |<text to display .  So, if I wanted to pipe a link to my user page, for example, I'd write out link to my user page , and it would come out looking like this: link to my user page, which, if you click on it, will indeed take you to the page User:Writ Keeper.  It's a good idea to have a link to your user page and your user talk page in your signature; some people have more, but those two links are generally accepted to be the minimum.  Now, as for good symbols, I use Unicode characters in my signature (specifically &#9863; and &#9812;), which are pretty easy to do.  What you do here is, first, you find a symbol you want.  There are lots of galleries to help you choose between the Unicode symbols; this is a pretty good one.  Once you find a symbol, make a note of its index number. (Some of the index numbers have letters in them; that's okay!)  For example, the crown in my signature has an index of 2654.  To display the character, you write "&#x", then the index number, then ";", so that, for my crown, I write &#x 2654; (without the extra space between the x and the 2), and it comes out looking like &#x2654;.  So, to put it all together, my signature code looks something like this: Writ Keeper &#x 2687;&#x 2654; and it will look like this in the end: Writ Keeper &#x2687;&#x2654;.  If I wanted to make all that text bold, I would just surround the text with the three single quotes like this: Writ Keeper &#x 2687;&#x 2654; and it would come out looking like this: Writ Keeper &#x2687;&#x2654;  If I were to make a signature for you, with the bold text and the same symbols, I would write something like: 20th Tryer &#x 2687;&#x 2654; and it would come out looking like this: 20th Tryer &#x2687;&#x2654;.  Note that, in all of the examples above, you need to take out the space between the x and the 2 for the symbols to show up.


 * And that's how it works! Let me know if you have any questions about this; it can get complicated at times.  Good luck! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Charnel ground
I added some useful refs to the talk page; of note, there is an article on another wiki which almost seems to be the basis of this one, and contains exactly the sort of coverage I wanted the wikipedia article to have. However, its sources are paper books, so I cannot verify the citations at all and don't feel comfortable just copying the citations over. Besides looking up this coverage, I don't feel I really have the resources or expertise to actually rewrite the article.

I'm not sure what authority the R3O actually holds, so I haven't removed the section from the main article again. I guess I'm asking if you could do it based on the R3O? If not, well, at least I provided some references for someone with the expertise and resources to spritz up the article.70.34.147.3 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For cleaning my talk page. I'd just finished giving the IP their 4th warning and was just waiting for the next one to send it to AIV. That one did it! Cheers!   Wikipelli Talk   16:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second 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) 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
 * First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
 * Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
 * Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
 * Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

Re:About those code tags on the Teahouse

 * On the
 * I don't think that the archives are primarily setup for referencing by users but by hosts so dating hasn't been a concern up to now. NtheP (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Am I right in reading thus:  to start a new archive after 70,000 bytes; (don't know)? ; leave 4 discussions; available to archive, if no new postings after 3 days?  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gareth, can't help you there - I just copied the settings off the page. As I manually archive I'm not au fait with any of the archiving bots.  best person to talk to is User:Writ Keeper as he's the one who set it up. NtheP (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... Thanks, I'll do that. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you advise me if I am correct in my interpretations and fill me in on the (don't know)?
 * I would also be interested to hear your thoughts regarding my suggestion. Cheers,  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Gareth. I remember opening the edit window to reply to this, but I must've closed it at some point without saving the reply, and I forgot about it in the snit that developed over the JS widget yesterday.  Sorry about that.
 * I didn't actually set up the archiving; not really sure who did. To answer your question, the counter parameter is simply a changing variable that indicates how many pages the archive has already; right now, the archive is up to subpage 7.  Miszabot automatically increments this when it moves to a new subpage.
 * As far as organizing it by date, I suppose I don't see a reason not to make the change in theory, but in practice, I think it might be more work than it's worth. The problem is that we already have a significant amount of material archived already; unless we just want to leave it inconsistent, we'd have to manually refactor the archives, since I don't think there's any bot that will do this automatically. And I don't think it really provides that much utility, since a new user going through the archives by date won't necessarily know  when it was posted (if they're looking to see if their question has been already asked and answered).  I think that just having the archives be searchable, as they are now, should be sufficient.
 * As for shortening the archive pages, I don't have any particular objection to that. We shouldn't make them *too* small, since having many small pages is often as hard or harder to navigate as a few big ones, but it's kinda whatever we feel is okay.  Changing the archive size down to 50KB should be fine, I think. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I do hope you did not feel any criticism in any part of my posting – I appreciate your involvement greatly (by the way, it was you who recommended Mozilla Firefox which has transformed my editing, restored my sanity, and saved me from buying a new computer!)
 * I can see the sense in all you have written here. One small thing, your use of the *xxx* above, rather than "xxx", is that to avoid any reaction e.g. Scare quotes?  Kind regards,  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, the asterisks are just for emphasis. It's some old Internet thing I picked up from some place or other. Think of it as equivalent to bolding or italics; in fact, I think certain IRC clients actually bold anything so enclosed by asterisks.  And no worries, I didn't think you were criticizing me. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive Index
(from the Teahouse)

How about an Archive Index for the Teahouse Q&A to help identify them? Then one could browse/identify past questions. See example at: Talk:Iraq War/Archive index. benzband ( talk ) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After reading your reply, i was going to then i saw you'd beaten me to it. Good job :-) benzband  ( talk ) 13:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Miss Angkhana will be informed of this
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Miss Angkhana will be informed of this, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I admit that this wasn't my most confident (or wise) use of a CSD tag.  Thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha
Was adding a trout as an example pure mischief or simple coincidence…? ;) benzband  ( talk ) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * mischief, lil bit Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion Service Award
You are the 12th recipient of the 3O service award, which I present to individuals who work at the project and who have 50 or more edits there with at least one edit in the last six months. Thank you for your excellent work for the community. Respectfully, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

FC Seoul
If you and redpen are korean or you can read korean neswspaper, below expressions are commonsence in Korea. If FC Seoul is english club, I think redpen don't pick holes in this article the well-known GS Group,Choi Yong-Soo is FC Seoul legend, FC Seoul is one of the most successful and the most popular club

Anyway, Editing of wikipedia is my just hobby. It's not my job. I'm tired of redpen's picking holes about this article. I don't care..Suit yourself. Footwiks (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Stalkback
Hi, thanks for the response. Is it better to upload to WP or WM then or does it do the same? Thanks  J e n o  v a  20 20:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the image; specifically, what license the image is being used under. If it's something you've created yourself, or it's otherwise freely-licensed or public domain, then it's usually better to upload it to Commons; things uploaded to Commons can be used on any Wikimedia project that wants to use it, not just WP.  If it's something that you're claiming fair use for, then you'll need to upload it just to WP (although make sure that it meets the criteria!).  There's some more info to be had here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks =]  J e n o  v a  20 20:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Jenova20 has given you a Puddytat! Kitties promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kitties must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitty, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Teahouse scripts
Writ - which is the script that adds the quick talkback |tb| on the Q&A page? It's not working properly for me on Safari, IE7 or Firefox. In Safari I lose the talk link on signatures although I have the |tb|. In IE7 talk and tb are both there but with line breaks in between and in Firefox I haven't got the talkback link. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's TeahouseTalkbackLink.js. Benzband is also having issues with it; I haven't been able to reproduce them in Firefox or Chrome though, and I haven't made any recent changes to cause it (last change to that script was April 2, two weeks ago).  You two don't seem to have any scripts in common, either, so there aren't any obvious culprits. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been there in Firefox (which is what I use mostly - Safari is the smartphone and IE work PC but keep it quiet ) because I've used it but it disappeared recently, can't quite pinpoint when though. NtheP (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what to tell ya; I tried copying all your scripts over to mine and I still can't reproduce in Firefox or Chrome, Monobook or Vector. Let me know if you can think of any other info that might be helpful, but without it, not sure there's anything I can do? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This morning it's back in Firefox but gone in Safari (!) NtheP (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)