User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/2

Q&A Talkback script
Woops i don't know why but your script was working perfectly this morning and has just let me down… do you know what might be the cause of this? benzband ( talk ) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which script was it, and what exactly happened with it? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, sorry for the way i put it :P Explanation: the script User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js which no longer adds "|TB|" to the signatures on the Q&A page. Is this only me? benzband  ( talk ) 09:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems to work for me, and I haven't made any changes to it since the second of April, so I'm not sure what's changed...let me know if you can glean any more info. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's working again :P [edit after seeing your message at Talk:Teahouse: i've been using the secure server recently] benzband  ( talk ) 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking your teahouse talkback links script to ptwiki
Hey Writ, I liked your script so much I think people over at ptwiki will find it useful as well. Hell, I want to make it a gadget over there.

I actually came here to ask for help in taking it over there, but in the process of writing a detailed account on where I needed the help I managed to get it working. Maybe not the best code but it does the trick. Check it out here (keep in mind that I'm not very proficient in JavaScript and that I'm more used to Python).

My major doubt about if I used the best solution is on lines 18/29. In Portuguese we indicate gender in most nouns and user is not an exception. When the user is male it is usuário, usuária for female and usuário(a) when the user has not chosen a gender in the preferences. Is the use of OR the best solution to this? I'll bug a friend that is very proficient in javascript to look over the script too.

Thanks for the script, by the way!

Chico Venancio (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to change the logic of those lines; the "OR" approach is teh best one, as far as I can tell. Stay tuned. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I finished an update that makes the detection of user talk page links a little more robust. It also allows us to use a more elegant solution to the gender thing. The only difference between the en and the pt versions (aside from the translations, of course) is in the line  .  In en, this will suffice; in pt, we can use a regex here to account for the variations like so:  .  I've made a pt version, but it should be tested before it goes live. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Interview ready
Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews3 is ready for your answers about the Teahouse now! Answer any/as many as you like.  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I asked Sarah Stierch who might be good to talk to, and she gave me your name.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't know how inspirational my story is, but I'm game. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hemisphere
Thanks for keeping the redirect. I was warned about having linked to a dab page and found no specific page for the concept, that's why I created the new page. HTML2011 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Samar casaneanu
Hi there Writ Keeper, and thanks for patrolling new pages - your help is really appreciated. I just noticed that you tagged Samar casaneanu for speedy deletion A7 one minute after it was created. I understand that you might be eager to tag pages for speedy deletion quickly - I have fallen into this trap on occasion myself - but if there is any chance at all that something may be useful to the project, then tagging it for deletion moments after creation is probably not a good idea. Who knows, the author of that page might have included a claim of importance in a further edit five minutes after creation, but if we tag it too quickly we may never know. The way I think about it is this: it doesn't really matter, in the scheme of things, if you miss out on a couple of speedy tags, but if you tag too enthusiastically it might put off new contributors from improving the articles which they have posted, and that would be a real shame. I tend to leave at least fifteen minutes after creation to tag ambiguous A7s for deletion, and if there's any chance the page could be kept, I think it's probably better to use PROD or AfD instead. Your mileage may vary. All the best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but the article was about a 14-year-old kid who had no ghits whatsoever (not even a Facebook page, which is pretty unusual in itself). It was pretty obvious that the subject was non-notable.  Just in case, though, I followed up on the user's talk page. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, then it's probably my stupid mistake - I didn't notice the 14-years-old part. I would go back and check, but it's been deleted already, which means you're almost certainly right. So... ignore my post above, and carry on with the good work. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; happens to the best of us. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Orbit Airlines (international fake airline)
why are you erasing my article I want to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramy A330 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's not notable. Wikipedia has standards for inclusion of articles, and I don't see anything that indicates the notability of this fictional organization outside the game it's in.  Moreover, you describe it as if it were a real organization; if it is indeed found to be notable, then it needs to be described as a piece of fiction, not as an airline company. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

db-multiple
I edit-conflicted with you at User talk:Soulismo4 - have a look at what I added there. I don't much like db-multiple, because the message for the article author is uninformative. I know it invites him to look at the article, but that may well be gone, and to contact the tagger, but new users sometimes have trouble working out how to do that so, as with TEI of Serres (which I have salted, by the way) they just put it in again.

Where, as so often, there is copyvio and promotion, what I have found best is to tag with db-copyvio so that they get the nothanks-sd message, but to add a short boiler-plate text which says something like "Please note that even if the copyright issue were resolved, the promotional tone of a company or personal website is likely to be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view. Article subjects need to have notability, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' There is more detail at WP:Notability (people), and good advice on how to write an acceptable article at WP:Your first article." tweaked for the particular case (e.g. add WP:BAND or WP:CORP if appropriate) so that they don't just rush off and get OTRS approval for some piece of hopeless puffery. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense; thanks! I'll do that from now on. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Defined
Don't mean to clutter your page, but now I know that sockpuppets aren't something obscene. I was starting to wonder. Thanks for the definition in response to jenray in Teahouse. Mystery solved. --Weathervane13 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing
The reason I suspect that a Speedy Deletion would be best for Forward (generic name of socialist publications) is that in addition to being poorly sourced WP:OR, it is now becoming the target of a right-wing WP:BLP campaign designed to tie the political campaign of Barack Obama to "socialism." As such, I suspect it'll keep getting attacked and vandalized, like the sleeper account Spazoto that I mention in my talkpage listing.

Do you have further thoughts on the matter or is there someone I could talk to or somewhere I could post to ask for further advice? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, G1 isn't appropriate for this article; "patent nonsense" in the G1 sense means illegible and incoherent character strings or word salad, like "Qwrikjwbnefijbnaukdbgukgk" or "spattering consistencies integrals macintoshes hardwareman"; basically text completely devoid of meaning. The only speedy deletion criterion that could possibly apply is db-hoax (a subset of G3), but even then, I don't think it can be said to be a hoax, and almost certainly not a blatant enough one to qualify for G3.  I think the best course of action would be to just try to ride out the storm until the PROD expires; if someone opposes the prod, we can always take it to AfD and ride it out there.  The place to escalate the situation would probably be the BLP noticeboard; I'm not sure it's necessary right now, but I haven't looked into this much, so you'll be a better judge of that than I; I leave that entirely to your judgement.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Need advice. this guy with some SERIOUSLY racist edits in his past is harassing the article and insisting that someone coming to the article and trying to tie Barack Obama to "socialism" is somehow not politically motivated? He is seriously getting under my skin, especially screaming that I'm the one "making it political" and telling me he doesn't "give a shit." I probably broke civility, but he seems to be trying to get that sort of provocation. What can I do? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have submitted the page to AfD, can you please check and make sure I did it correctly? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing you cannot do is restore the PROD tag: it's only meant to be used once on the article. The AfD nomination appears to be fine there; you should be good to go as far as that is concerned.  To be honest, I can't comment on the issues you're talking about directly; I haven't looked into them enough to understand what's going on.  As I said, if your issue is with the content of the article, you can try taking it to the BLP noticeboard, or perhaps the dispute resolution noticeboard.  If your issue is with the user's conduct in particular, you can try taking it to Wikiquette Assistance, the first stop in addressing user conduct issues.  If you think the user's actions require immediate admin action, the incidents section of the administrator's noticeboard is an option, but I would be extremely cautious if you do that; I would think twice, even three or four times before making a post there, and certainly not until after other measures have been tried.  Also, it's not vandalism; "vandalism" has a pretty specific meaning in the context of Wikipedia, and using that word outside its scope can be considered hostile.  Thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Nice job beating me to the world's most honest copyright violation at Tantrum to blind (band) :D Ducknish (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they didn't make it too tough on us, thankfully. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback Script
I love your talkback script and I think it is very important in helping users find out we answered their questions. Do you think there is any way you could create one for the help desk? Ryan Vesey Review me!  19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it should be pretty easy to do. You'll have to give me some time, though, because I have to retrofit some great ideas that Chicovenancio came up with in his version above.  It's been on my list a while, but I never seem to have enough time to get around to it.  I assume you're talking about the talkback link one? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that is the one that automatically leaves a talkback message when you click tb, then yes. Take all the time in the world, the help desk hasn't had the script for however many years its been around, I'm sure we can wait awhile.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Writ. Although the comment that Aregakn has just posted on my talk page hasn't really helped much. Talk about someone kicking me down even further when I am already low as it is. Someone needs to say something to him, for being insensitive. Wesley ☀  Mouse  01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and was thinking about saying something myself, but I really don't have anything to add beyond what you already said. :P I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't see your notice. My comments earlier applies in even more force now: we're here for you if you need us, but if it's not helping, it's probably better to just walk away from it rather than just get frustrated.  God knows that I can't imagine what you're feeling at the moment, so I don't want to blather on too much, but you're in my thoughts, for what it's worth. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, everyone being here is helping me take my mind off things; although I suppose I should be trying to focus on the rest of my family right now. But everything just came so sudden.  One minute I was in mid-argument with an editor on here, and the next I get a phone call, and I'm like "OMFG what the hell is happening right now!?".  I've asked Aregakn to kindly remove his post, I know I could do it myself, but it would be more sincere and probably a polite gesture if he did it really.  You know though, after this shocking news, all I've done is just look back on things - even here, I'm going through all of my contributions and re-reading every bit of detail that I've done.  Silly eh!?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  02:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not silly, if it keeps your mind off darker things. Not silly, if it provides you with a (completely justified!) sense of worth.  All our bitter, usually petty squabblings aside, Wikipedia is a pretty damn good thing at the end of the day, and being able to contribute to it even in the smallest of ways is something one can take pride in.  Do whatever it takes to get through this, man.  We're in your corner. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hello Writ Keeper. Four days ago you volunteered to provide a third opinion on a small matter on Talk:Flight. You offered some suggestions about how you thought the sentence in question might be reworded but I’m not aware of what your opinion is on the matter. Have you finished your involvement in the matter, or do you intend to return for further discussion?

In your most recent edit you wrote I agree that the original sentence is not really supported by the source. (Your diff.)  I think that is a wise observation to make, and if that is your opinion I would certainly respect it.

At present there is disagreement about whether the original sentence is satisfactory or whether it needs further work. If you state that the original sentence is not supported by the source it will make it clear that further work is needed.

Please return to Talk:Flight and tell us your opinion. Many thanks! Dolphin ( t ) 03:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that was the extent to which I'd intended to participate. Partially because I feel I've said all I can usefully say (this is not my area of expertise), and partially because that's kinda the nature of the 3O way.  I actually get more involved with 3Os than is generally prescribed; 3Os are intended to be sort of a flyby opinion. I'll gladly return to express my views and hopefully give a little clarity to my thought. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Writ Keeper. I have altered the sentence in line with your opinion and made the following explanation on the Talk page: diff.  Dolphin  ( t ) 04:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

teahouseTalkbackLink.js
Over at User:Chicocvenancio/teahouseTalkbackLink.js I've finally finished the script. Most changes are behind the scenes (I used the API and jQuerry) but the script no longer changes the page you are in and sends you messages (success/failure) via the tooltips. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool. I'll have to replicate the API/JQuery changes over to my script, but personally, I kinda like how mine changes the page.  If you want, you should consider putting your flavor up on the user scripts page to let people choose.  Nicely done! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Writ, I think I can make this script do the same as before with a change in just a line of code. I'll probably be done with it by Tuesday. Chico Venancio (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chico Venancio (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Writ, there was a small problem found with the implementation I used. I'll fix it right now. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ its A-Okay now. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been working my way through the code. (The tipsy thing confused me for a second; I've never seen that plugin before.) It looks like you use the sectionTitle variable to store the page content: am I reading that right?  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very, very cool. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cute (Japanese band)
Hi Writ,

Just thought I'd make you aware that there have been further developments at the above named article talk page. The main editor involved has got users from Portal:Japan, as well as users who are members from both Japanese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. Seems that they are still arguing over the inclusion of adding a multitude of YouTube links, and appear to be siding with Moscowconntion, in that he was right to add a full video discography to every article. I was going to attempt to comment, but still not at 100% focus level. Would you be so kind as to glance over there, and add a bit of decorum to proceedings. Thanks Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks, Blue Rasberry. It's not really the canned answers themselves that worry me, it's more the attitude that sometimes goes with it, that we're just rubberstamping the questions without looking at them as coming from real people.  The humanity of the Teahouse is the important part of it, and I worry that, no matter how friendly our (hypothetical) rubber stamps may appear, we'll lose the human intent and feeling behind them.  But I'm really not all that worried about it for the moment; things seem to be going well, and that's a concern for the somewhat distant future, which we'll address if and when we need to. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Three
Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
 * Teahouse reaches two month mark. The Teahouse has been live on English Wikipedia for two months now and evidence of the project's impact is beginning to show. Thank you to the hosts and Wikipedians who have helped make the Teahouse the valuable place for new editor's to seek help and feel welcome.
 * April metrics report has been posted on meta! Some relevant metrics from April’s report include:
 * In April, Teahouse averaged 45 questions per week.
 * An average of 20 new editors visiting for the first time were served at the Teahouse, in addition to repeat guests.


 * Many guests are repeat visitors: the average guest asks 1.5 questions and 22% of guests ask more than one question.


 * Reports show that the Teahouse is having a positive impact on editor engagement! Comparing a sample of 75 new editors who participate in the Teahouse with a control group (of equivalent size and similar first-day editing activity) shows:
 * New editors who participate in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles than the uninvited control group.
 * New editor participants also make an average six times more global edits.
 * Average Teahouse participants add 26 times more bytes of content that survive on Wikipedia (meaning content that isn't reverted or deleted) than the uninvited control group.

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) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More Teahouse participants remain active on Wikipedia at least 10 days later. Among the 224 editors in our three experimental groups, 28 percent of new editors who participate in the Teahouse were still active on Wikipedia at least ten days later, compared with 12 percent who received an invitation but didn't actively participate in the Teahouse, and only 5 percent from a similar uninvited control group.
 * Teahouse visibility is a challenge, as we try to make the Teahouse visible to new editors, invitation has been the the main way of informing new editors about the Teahouse, and while that is a powerful tool, many new editors go uninvited. Input on Teahouse link placement is welcome! (Join in on the conversation here.)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * 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.

Nanotechnology Industries Association
I removed the speedy tag. Deletion was contested. It might be notable. Send the issue to WP:AfD if you want a discussion. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It was pretty much borderline, anyway; I'll not go to AfD.  Thanks for letting me know. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Take this as my appreciation

 * I didn't do all that much, but thanks anyway! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hobbyking G11 Speedy
Hey just a heads up the original article creator on Hobbyking just removed your G11 speedy (which I happen to agree with), so I retagged it. I figure there is a good chance it may get removed again improperly so just wanted to give you a heads up. Take care! Wrathofjames (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our Teahouse survey


Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 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

Come on dude
Surely it's reasonable to "attack" other editors if they're going to engage in such benderish conversation?!? 94.2.163.37 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's really not. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess "bender" means "gay"? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Not a meaning of the word I've heard of, but then I have never been able to be described as "hip" at any point in my life. Maybe he's really bad at pretending to be British? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From Wiktionary: "4. (chiefly UK, slang, derogatory) A homosexual man."  Learn something new every day, although I could've done without this time. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I Love Chile
Thanks man for your help, i appreciate it. By the way, ILC is listed it wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Chile — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRiegger (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, any time. It's actually very refreshing to see someone actually trying to improve; most people just stomp off in a huff. And like I said, you're doing a lot better.  It's interesting that it's listed in Wikipedia, but keep in mind that Wikipedia can't actually be used as a reliable source; we'd get into all sorts of self-referential, navel-gazing messes.  What we need is some kind of other newspaper or the like, not affiliated to I Love Chile, that discusses the company.  have there been any reaction pieces in local media about it (good or bad)?  Something like that might be helpful, although of course it would have to be carefully looked at to make sure it's reliable. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check your recent edit to Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012
Hi--

I looked back on my edit of Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012 and found that somehow I had changed the size of the article by 20,358 bytes when I had just intended to repair a bad link in the article. Sorry about that. I don't know how I got that wrong. The system somehow wouldn't let me undo my change, so I simply copied and posted the 18:28, 20 May 2012‎ revision (the revision that preceded my bad edit). So your edit at 14:51, 23 May 2012‎ had to be trashed. Please take a look at the most recent revision and see whether your edit needs to be redone. Of course you can use the "View history" feature to recover your edit so that you don't have to retype it. Thank you, and sorry again for the inconvenience.CountMacula (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, we're good; it was just fixing a dablink. No worries.  Thanks for letting me know! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback
Dear Writ Keeper I'd like to draw your attention toward the article at User:Maharathi/sandbox and invite your valuable suggestions and feedback to improve the article.Maharathi (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Maharathi, I've looked over it and made a first attempt at proofreading/copyediting. You might want to take a look at the changes to make sure they make sense; some of the meanings of sentences may have changed.  I have a few other comments, but I'm going to follow suit and reply at JohnCD's talk page, as Drmies did, so that we can have a more centralized discussion. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mercedes (name)
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mercedes (name), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: As also the template says, A10 does not apply to page splits. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * facepalm* You're totally right, sorry about that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * No probalo! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Host feedback needed at the Teahouse!
Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

3O declined
Hello Writ Keeper, and thanks for leaving a message at my talk page. And thanks for your clarification on "vandalism", which I clearly misunderstood before you explained to me. But if you don't mind, I hope you could provide additional advice on how to deal with the IP that I have a dispute.

It is true that the IP has a firm belief on the topic and he's editing based on his knowledge. Maybe he's right, and I'm wrong. But, all I'm asking was to discuss the issue on each battle page not on the "List of naval battles" (This was my primary point during the whole discussion.) and from the beginning I made it clear that I'm not an expert on history, so that I'm not a right person to argue.

For the record, this page was not even on my watch list. I found it while I checking the IP's contributions. All I did at List of naval battles was reverting the IP's edits after I found it unneutral, and I did not include the contents in question. I'm not sure how you see it, but now I feel like (maybe or maybe not) he/she is threatening: "If you do not have the evidence to refute, I will (not) allow the exit of this discussion." Of course, I can assume his/her "Good faith" and continue to talk nicely and try to do my best to let the person understand my intention. But I thought, if a independent person try it differently, then it might work better. In addition, I found the IP is very difficult to talk to and the discussion is pointless in that he/she digress from the issue and saying something unrelated/possibly contentious topic.

So far I'm still not convinced with the IP's explanation: (to explain why I see it that way,) Basically he tries to argue that Koreans didn't fight (or at least didn't do any significant job) in that war/battles. Even without much background knowledge, it's hard to believe what the IP says. To be specific, IP trying to erase a Country A commander's name from the battle, when the allied forces were only consisted of Country A and B. However the IP put it or how much the Country A may contributed to the battle, stating both admirals from each side hardly can't be a problem. (we are talking about the top commander, not low-, mid-, or high- level officers, and replace Country A and B with Korea and China.)

I really hope you could give me some insight on how to handle it, since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't have much experience. Thanks again. --- PBJT (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, probably the best thing to do for the content side of things would be to call in some experts (or at least, the closest thing we have to experts) from the military history Wikiproject. They're a pretty active, well-populated project, and while I don't know how far back and to what countries their experience extends, it's probably our best bet (and a good one, too).  You can make a post on the project's talk page, asking for help.  You can also try the Wikiprojects for China, Korea, or Japan.  The steps of dispute resolution are open, as well, although as I said, you should keep in mind that they're geared for questions of content, not user conduct.
 * If the edit warring becomes a serious problem, you can try posting at the admin noticeboard for edit warring; there are some steps that they can take to try to bring the IP editor to the discussion table. I'm not over-familiar with that side of things; there might be a better place for it, but I think that's at least a place to start. There are other places that address user conduct too, like the Wikiquette assistance board.  Anyway, I hope this helps, and good luck! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your speedy response, and thanks again for wishing me luck. I suggested the exactly same thing to the IP: "open a new discussion at each battle talk page, and notify related WikiProjects, namely Project Japan and Military history". And this was my major point from the beginning: "I could be wrong, and I might have recklessly reverted your editing. But if what you saying is accurate, then Wikipedia needs your assistance in correcting the error."
 * I tried WP:3O first because it is a informal channel and the IP's uncivility isn't really a problem yet and I might have overreacted. If you don't mind, could you please tell what you said to the IP, instead of me? (to be fair, I think this is the IP's pet topic, not mine.) You don't need to comment as someone from 3O. All I need is any comment with fresh eyes. When I restated the issue at WP:3O, I assume that people are hesitating to comment since it is Japan-Korea related issue and it is well-known for its possibly contentious nature.
 * I reposted the issue (sorry about that), and I don't expect people to side with me. But I really need some neutral and friendly comments in that talk page. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; feel free to do whatever you think is right. If you're asking about the content issue, then it's totally fine to make another 3O request.  (The only reason I didn't accept the request when I first saw it is because I can't read the source that's in dispute, so I can't really give a worthwhile opinion.)  I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but when I get a chance, I'll try to talk to him a bit. (Oh, and the blanking of my talk page was a good example of real vandalism; thanks for spotting it and reverting!) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined PROD?
I think it was an edit conflict. When I added the AfD, the PROD wasn't on there. Too bad Twinkle doesn't seem to detect edit conflicts :( Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries. Like I said, no big deal; either way, what needed to happen happened. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision article improvements
Writ,

Would you be able to do me a favour please? As you know through my comment at Drmies, I am doing extensive improvements to all Eurovision and Junior Eurovision articles (60+ of them for a rough estimate). The improvements are rolling out a new standardised layout style across the articles, based on suggestions made at the project RfC. So far, I've managed to improve 1956 - 1960; but the more I look at them, the more I wonder if something is missing; and I can't quite put my finger on what it is (if in fact there is anything missing at all). Would you be so kind as to have a glance, when you get time, at the articles 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60 - and see if you are able to notice any abnormalities. I like my work to be as near perfect as possible, and your views would help put my mind at rest. Thanks, Wesley  ☀  Mouse  13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. At a quick glance, they look all right; the only comment I have at the moment is that the "Eurovision Song Contest 19xx" template looks like an out-of-place navbox; shouldn't it go at the bottom of the article, with the other navbox (the same way it does in your sandbox mockup)? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, maybe that is what's looking out of place. Those things are in reality an index box, which quick glance access to related articles.  And in the ideal world, an index lives at the back of a book (or in this case at the bottom of an article).  On the other articles that I've yet to work on, those boxes are scattered all over the place, and doesn't give a consistent standardised look to the articles.  Hmmm I'm going to be brave and bold, and put them where they should live, at the bottom as an index.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

SeaOrbiter 3O
I did what I did before I saw you were going to take on this request. Perhaps you could see if the solution I offered is satisfactory? Millermk (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I edit-conflicted with you on the talk page, and your compromise looks fine to me. (With all respect to its creator, that awful MSPaint picture had to go...)  I've got the page on my watchlist, so if any more discussion crops up, I might chime in.
 * No worries at all about "poaching" the 3O; it's good to see that other people do it! What I do generally is, as soon as I've decided to work on a 3O request, the first thing I do is remove the listing from WP:3O; this way, duplications of effort like that can be more easily avoided.  No big deal either way, though.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for offering assistance on the matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

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) 17:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * 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 really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

New message!
It seems you have forgotten to sign. anyway, not an issue! I request you to see edit history of an talk once since that editor made some edits in his post some time after I answered it. I ignored it since he is comparatively new. Talk:Bhagavad_Gita -- Tito Dutta  ✉  14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That editor is seeking your help there!-- Tito Dutta  ✉  03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is about the third party dispute. I see that I am against the consensus here, and I withdraw my request. Thanks for your time. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Heart pine
Hi. In connection with Teahouse/Questions, are you please able to offer further guidance on Heart pine? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at the article talk page, thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Heh, thanks, Heather! I could go for a non-virtual one right about now.... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF) •  talk   18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and testing if I'm doing this right
So I think I screwed up how to reply to you. I'm testing it this way now to see if it works. Hopefully, I haven't already started annoying you, :-P.Satellitedmb (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, it'll take a lot more than that. Trust me, if there was such a thing, I would be the king of annoying people with test edits.  What you've done is one accepted way to reply to people; the other (what I'm doing now) is to write just below them, with an indent.  The way this works is: edit the section to which you're replying by hitting the [edit] link next to that section's title.  So, for this section, look at the "Sorry and testing if I'm doing this right" and follow the line under it all the way to the right, and that's the [edit] you click on.  You'll go to the edit screen with just that section's text on it.  To reply, make a new line below the text and put a colon (':') right before your response.  This colon automatically gets turned into the proper indentation.  If you're replying to something, it's traditional to add one more level of indentation, to keep things clearer. So, right now, I'm replying to something you wrote with no indentation, so I'll indent my post using one colon, which is the first level.  If you in turn wanted to respond to me, you'd see that I started my post with a single colon, so you would put two colons ('::') in front of your post.  This will indent your post to just within mine.  Wikicode (which is what the colons and stuff is called) can be pretty complicated if you're not a computer person; it's just another one of those quirks that takes getting used to.  (We're working on something easier to use.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: One thing you did do, though, is remove some of the stuff I had already had on my talk page. No worries; you can't break anything permanently on Wikipedia.  Just, when you go to a talk page to edit it, you should make sure to leave whatever's already there untouched. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, I'm sorry! For some reason I thought it was duplicating something. Thanks for the lesson! :-)Satellitedmb (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your 3O at Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
I have made some followups to your response, if you would care to elaborate I would appreciate it. Thanks Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

LCV
Ha, you're on the list too. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? List of what? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, figured it out. Well, what can ya do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarah (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Script issues
Hey Writ - I've noticed two issues upon returning "to wiki" post-Wikimania:
 * 1) The Teahouse script you wrote which allows me to easily drop off templates is not existent in my menu now.
 * 2) I also lost a script that allows me to learn how long a user has had an account, how many edits they have made, and if they have checked it - what gender they are. I don't know what it was called, as another editor added it to me. Not sure if you have any insight on what to do? (Or just do it for me? ;) ) Thank you sir! Sarah (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You got some weird stuff going on in those js pages. Lemme see what I can do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've come up with: go to User:SarahStierch/common.js and blank it. Go to User:SarahStierch/vector.js and replace what's there with User:Writ_Keeper/sarahvector.js. Go to User:SarahStierch/vector.css and add this to it (don't replace what's there for this one, just add it on a new line at the end):

That should do it! I think the problem was that you had copied the source from one of my scripts into yours so that you could modify a message it left; the script had been updated since then, and you didn't get the update. I copied the new message over into a new version of the script (at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility-SarahFlavor.js) and I'm having you import that one instead. Jeez, looking back at these old scripts...I need to do some serious work on them, now that I actually know a bit about the API. I wrote them all on the edge of my seat. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It worked! You rock. Ok, one thing I'd like to do - modify the invitation language based on some things we're working on for phase two. Is that okay with you? If so, please link me to it =) Thanks! Sarah (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so here's the thing. Non-admins aren't allowed to edit pages that end in .js that are in other people's userspaces (which is why I had to tell you to replace those things in your userspace; I was unable to do it myself.)  If you want, you can tell me the changes you'd like to make, and I'd be happy to change your version of the Teahouse Utility (which is still in my userspace).  Or, you can copy the code into your own userspace (into a separate .js page, something like User:SarahStierch/teahouseUtility.js, and then you import that on your vector.js page instead of the teahouseUtility that's there).  That would let you change it however you want.  I'll give a more detailed description of how to do so if you want, but I'm out of time, so I'll talk later.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User Page Mistake
Yup. Just a mistake, thanks! Lady Pandora (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Just delete it, I was making user boxes. Lady Pandora (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible " third part perspective "
Hey There! Long time no me! I was wondering if you could give your opinion on a discussion. No it's not a 3-O, but similar. I have been engaged with a few other editors, in a discussion about a possible rename for a Quebec related page. Two editors, myself included, seem to be under the impression that WP:UCN is the way to go, whereas two others seem to feel that the name English name provided by a uni-lingual French government should prevail. It is also my opinion that the other editors in question are native French speakers, with a minority English population, and therefore are not seeing the same language usage as they would in a predominately English population. Thanks--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  23:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Look...
. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jericho project
The Jericho model part is definitely a copyvio - a quick perusal doesn't reveal any other to me, but it's quite possible they're there. I'll look more later, but blanking the problem section is a minimum. I'd guess it'll turn out the rest has to go, given that. Wily D 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I filed a report here Copyright problems/2012 July 23. I'm usually pretty good at copyright, but this is pretty thorny.  Wily D  19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Helpful
You were helpful on the page where you acted as "talk stalker". So I have a question you may be able to answer. Do you know where I can appeal an admin's decision to "hide" a discussion, for the sole reason that they are embarrassing to him, as he got his ass handed to him, and made bizarre and embarrassing pronouncements? I am pretty sure that the rules do not allow for hiding discussions "in case they cause embarrassment to admins". Thanks in advance. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the rules give users quite a bit of leeway to deal with comments however they like on their own talk pages. Jac would've been within their rights to delete the thread entirely, but they didn't even do that.  The thing is that any changes made are (almost) always retrievable through the page history, so if there's something that needs attention, hatting or removing it doesn't mean it can't be found. If it were an article talk page, that would be one thing, but Jac is definitely allowed to close discussions however they want.
 * I'd also advise you to cut the attitude. I appreciate that, when dealing with real-life issues of this kind, tempers can flare and things can get heated, but that's no way to build an encyclopedia. Your repeatedly-stated interest in displaying how Jac "got his ass handed to him" makes it appear that you're only here to "win" the argument, rather than to improve the wiki.  That's not cool, and It can get you blocked from editing entirely if you persist in it.  Remember that the things you write on Wikipedia are the only things we know about you; we try to assume good faith in our contributors, but if you keep on being hostile, well, assuming good faith can only go so far.  Drop the confrontational bit and try to stick to the issue at hand, okay? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the rules you quote appear to be talking about deleting as opposed to archiving, in order to make space. Or deleting warnings. It does not appear to be a get out of jail free card for avoiding embarrassment - especially when one is an administrator and supposed to defend one's behavior, not arbitrarily declare an end, because is incapable of properly one's actions.
 * The fact that he embarrassed himself in the discussions I am referring to is the entire point. He would not have hidden the thread, had he not embarrassed himself. There are many discussions on his talk page, none of them hidden, because none of them make him look bad. In fact, they cast him in a somewhat favorable light. So he did not hide them, even when they reached a logical end point. Since I was asking you to give me information on where to appeal such matters, I had to give you a bit of context. It has nothing to do with me wanting to "win" the argument. It's just that using your administrator powers to arbitrarily end a discussion when you can't properly defend your actions, is just sad. Arbitrarily declaring an end to an discussion without being able to refute the arguments of the other party, and using your administratorial powers to impose a solution, that shows that one is only here to win an argument, rather than improve the wiki.
 * Hell, even you knew that he was incapable of defending his actions, because you barged in as a "stalker" and made a proper argument for him. Your own actions show your argument to be false, my friend.
 * Am I being hostile? I think you know full well whether I am being "hostile" or not, given the tone in which I address you and addressed you when your barged in to make Jac16888's argument for him. So there's no need to make such accusations. In fact, it's rather hostile and confrontational.
 * If there is no specific place to appeal Talk page deletions and hidetags, is there a place where I can appeal arbitrary decisions by administrators? Or complain about the fact that they do not properly respond to community feedback? Thanks in advance. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. You're not being hostile to me, and I appreciate that, but you're definitely being hostile to Jac, and I don't appreciate that.  A few things: Jac has used no kind of administrator power in his discussion with you; the ability to close and open threads on one's own talk page is something available to any user, so let's not hear anything more about "admin abuse".  It's a way overused trope on Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with the current situation.  Second, WP:OWNTALK says: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages".  It's pretty clear.  It definitely applies to this.  After all, he hasn't even really removed the thread, just closed it.  It's not even really hidden; all you have to do to is click [show].  Even if the precise wording of of the rules don't exactly apply, Wikipedia is all about not letting the letter of the law interfere with the spirit of the law.
 * To strictly answer your question: there is no place to appeal such things, because, again, users are free to do whatever they want with their own user talk pages, within reason, and this is definitely within reason. If you want to go raise a case about this on ANI, the most highly-trafficked page for dealing with conduct issues, you're more than welcome, but I'm telling you now that you will be laughed out of town. Probably with an indefinite boomerang block to go along with it.  But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
 * I'm willing to continue discussing hypotheticals with you, but I am not willing to allow this kind of sniping at another user on my talk page, and I refuse to be a party to it any further. Insulting me is one thing, I don't really care about that, but I'm not willing to provide a venue for you to insult someone else.  So I don't want to hear about Jac any more from you (not even any veiled allusions to him).  If you really think he's abusing his power, take it to ANI, but I guarantee that you'll regret it if you do, because if there's anyone here in the wrong (and there is), it's you.  Enough is enough. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I might just add an extra point about talk pages, you mention the difference between deletion and archiving. The reason that editors are allowed to remove anything from their talk page is because it's all available in the talk page history. Talk pages are rarely deleted, in whole or in part, because the history is so valuable in this manner. Archiving is a system which allows editors to view the talk page history in a more simple to read form, but again, the original text is still available in the talk page history.  Worm TT( talk ) 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself. First, you say: "You're not being hostile to me". Then, you say: "Insulting me is one thing" - as if I have insulted you, which would be 'being hostile'.
 * Nor have I insulted anyone else, and you know it. Just because you disagree, does not make anyone else's opinion an "insult".
 * Earlier, you claimed that Jac16888 imputing dark motivations and intentions to me was not a "personal attack". It appears that what is an insult and/or a personal attack depends not on what happens, but on the person speaking.
 * From the very beginning, it was very clear on whose side you were. I do not begrudge you a side, but please do not pretend to be an independent and impartial observer, who "decides" that I am in the wrong, not the person on whose behalf you intervened in the first place.
 * What I referred to was removing a well-argued and reasonable request without responding to it. I presume that you do not believe that admins have the right to do whatever they want, and ignore criticism and reasonable requests? That's what this is about. I posted a reasonable request, which was deleted without justification or argument.
 * Kindly refrain from twisting the above into some sort of "insult". Thanks in advance. And thanks for the information. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't insulted me, I'll freely acknowledge that. That comment was in a more speculative vein: if you had insulted me, I wouldn't have cared, but it's that you're doing it to a third party that is problematic to me.  Apologies for not making that clear.  As for sides: "I am for the encyclopedia.  Is there another side?" I haven't claimed to be an impartial anything, but I'm pretty sure I don't have a horse in this race.  In fact, I don't even know what the precise issue here is; I didn't see the thread on Jac's page until the article had already been deleted, and I haven't bothered trying to sleuth out what the title was.  All I can do is respond to the arguments you were using.
 * To be honest, I'm not interested in discussing what is and isn't a personal attack with you, as my opinions on that are worth exactly nothing. All I can say is that, if you feel like there's a problem, take it to ANI.  I don't think that this conversation is going to produce anything but drama, so please give the dead horse a rest, and drop the stick while you're at it.  I won't put the "discussion closed" hider on this conversation, since that apparently bothers you for some reason, but I consider it closed, so I'll ask you to please respect that.  Your avenue for redress is still available; if you really think that there's a problem with Jac's conduct, use it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Declined"
I see that you declined the request. Unfortunately, I made multiple attempts to discuss with that editor about the pasage, both on his user page and the talk page. He hasn't answered. I don't know what else to do... I asked an admin and they said to take it to dispute resolution... I wrote what he said in the summary box, hoping that would be enough info and take the place of a discussion on the talk page, since he just isn't responding to me... So what should I do in this type of case?

Thanks. -- Activism  1234  05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, I meant to give you feedback on your 3O request, but had to step away from the keyboard, and I posted to your talk page before you had posted to mine. The thing with the current DR processes, particularly 3O, is that they kinda require participation from all parties in the dispute to really go anywhere, since they have no authority to make binding decisions.  Since they can't just say "this is how it's going to be", they have to get both sides to agree on something, and it's not easy to do that when one side isn't at the table.
 * As for what to do, I guess the thing that comes to mind is: have you tried asking them on their talk page? I see some conversation between you and them, but it seems to be unrelated to the current issue. Other than that, I would've said that, if the other person is edit warring, to send it to the appropriate admin noticeboard, but since you've already talked to an admin, I'm guessing that won't help much.  They don't appear to be edit-warring anyway. You might have more luck at the dispute resolution noticeboard, if you haven't tried that already; it's a bit more structured, so they might be more capable of inducing the other person to communicate.  Beyond that, I don't really know what we can do... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this issue on their talk page in a section I wrote that dealt with other things as well, and didn't get any response at all to that section. I'll try their talk page once more, before going to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm not looking for sanctions against him or anything, although he has been blocked before for 72 hours for edit warring, since I've seen how a group of editors with a POV can gang up on a person in these admin boards and get him/her banned, all I want really is for the redundant POV passage to be removed. Thanks for the advice. -- Activism  1234  16:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the section on his talk page and made it very detailed and as clear as I could, in the hopes that he would respond with a coherent argument or agree with me (the latter has never happened, for example, when I told him he violated 3RR, he said that he didn't and I "must be new," despite an administrator also saying he violated 3RR). Hopefully it will help.  Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. -- Activism  1234  17:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

He slightly responded to me here, but ignored a lot of what I said and it doesn't look like there'd be any breakthrough... Even if you don't do it through the 30 page, maybe you can just take a look at it and add your opinion? Thanks. -- Activism  1234  18:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a whole lot of time at the moment, but if/when I get a chance, I'll take a look. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I decided to take it to dispute resolution, which another editor recommended. -- Activism  1234  21:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks! I was wondering how to do that! Ebikeguy (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Prodcution Loggin Electron Spin Resonance
Hi There

I received an email titled: "Wikipedia page User talk". It talks about certain concerns related to the copyright of what is written in it. But not sure where to respond to it, can I respond to it directly in here?

Thanks Carlos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.216.139 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can reply here if you like, but it's probably better to keep it centralized at your talk page. Either way's all right with me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

teahouse
Hiya Writ Keeper, Aha! thanks for letting me know, that explains it! When my edit disappeared I thought i must have done something wrong as I'm new to editing pages. have rewritten my edit and seems to be there now. Will file under 'glitch in the matrix':-)Kitfox32 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on a fellowship proposal
Hi Writ Keeper! At Wikimania I think we talked briefly about badges and other kinds of rewards systems, related to the Teahouse. Well, we've got a fellowship idea proposing to experiment with badges in the Teahouse, which obviously has potential to tie into the Teahouse work being planned. I wondered if you might have a look and share your thoughts (feedback, concerns, endorsement, suggestions, whatever), to help us evaluate it. Thanks! Siko (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Testtest
Sorry for the test page, so what can I do.HelloWorldTestAccount (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, don't worry about it; the page has already been deleted, so we're all good there. Like I said, if you want to keep doing test edits (which is perfectly fine), you can edit the sandbox as much as you like.  If you want to create pages, you can do so, but just make sure that they are all subpages of your userpage.  So, as I said in your talk page, if you just put "User:HelloWorldTestAccount/" in front of the title of any page you want to create, you can create almost any page you want.  An example is my personal sandbox, which can be found at User:Writ Keeper/sandbox.  So, the title of the page is "sandbox", but since it starts with "User:Writ Keeper", it's considered a subpage of "User:Writ Keeper", my userpage. So it's kind of like the files on your computer, where you could think of "User:HelloWorldTestAccount" as a folder, and you're creating pages in that folder. (It's not a perfect analogy, and you should note that the User:HeeloWorldTestAccount page doesn't actually have to exist for you to make subpages for it, but that's the general idea).  Anyhoo, as long as you're creating new pages within that "folder", you're free to make whatever test pages you want.  Hope this helps! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But I want to learn wikipedia source-code and the only way to do that is to see what happens when I change each element.HelloWorldTestAccount (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect  assumption -  there are sandboxes, and we actually  have close on  1,000 pages of help  and guidelines here. yYu may wish  to  start learning what you need to know at Help:Editing and Your first article. You'll soon find out if you do anything wrong without needing to make disruptive edits to find out what happens. See the reply on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!


 * Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
 * More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
 * Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
 * New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
 * Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

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) 08:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

what is kmart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otisfrog (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Help!
Okay, can I find someone who could possibly write it for me? Or help me out on how to publish it properly? I've seen many articles which don't have much writing and I have no idea on how to make it offical! Thanks for the help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartridgeNo9 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the thing: the problem isn't with the article's writing. It's with the article's subject.  Notability isn't really a thing you make when you write an article; the subject either has it or they don't, and I'm afraid that I don't think she does.  Like I said, the most basic element of notability is coverage in reliable sources.  It's not just that you didn't put any on the article, it's that I can't find any when I look, and I don't think there are even any do be found.  You see what I mean?
 * One of the most basic principles of Wikipedia is called verifiability. Information is verifiable when someone can confirm that information by looking it up in a reliable source.  Wikipedia strives to have only information that is verifiable within its articles.  This means that, if a person doesn't have any reliable sources that talk about them, then we can't write anything about them, since we can't verify anything we write.  that's why we have things like notability.  This is especially important for living people, since if we have information that's wrong about them, we can accidentally make their lives worse, in ways that we can't always predict.  So, because of this policy about the biographies of living people, we have to be extra-strict about things like notability and verifiability in articles about living people.
 * I'm sorry to give you what might be a disappointing answer, but the bottom line is that I don't think it'd be appropriate to have any kind of article on this person right now, no matter who writes it. Now, just because she's not notable now, doesn't mean she won't be notable in the future!  We just have to wait until she really is notable, and then we can write her article.  And even though the article was deleted, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia!  As I said, the policies around here can be kinda tough at times, but we just gotta roll with it sometimes. Editing Wikipedia's pretty fun once you get the hang of it, so don't get discouraged! We really do appreciate the effort!  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Josie Charlwood
If you Google her name, loads of sources come up? I'm confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartridgeNo9 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, see, that's the trick. A bunch of websites come up, but the thing is that they have to be reliable.  Reliable sources are usually things like newspapers, magazines, things like that.  So, if there was an article on her written by, say, the staff of Rolling Stone magazine, that would count as a reliable source, even if it's on rollingstone.com.  But when I look at the Google results, I see a lot of Facebook posts, Bandcamp entries, blog posts, and things like that.  Those things are all what are called self-published sources, and those don't count as reliable, since anyone could make them.  Again, the issue is significant coverage (that is, a full paragraph or more) in multiple reliable sources (that is, things written or published by a reputable organization that has editorial oversight) that are independent of each other and the subject. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan to Beersheeba
Hi Writ Keeper, I am adding to the article now - it has great modern relevance and notability because it was the key defining geographical term for what became British Palestine, and later modern Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lynfect's Law
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lynfect's Law, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not a hoax as demonstrated by the lovely links... Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position where I can follow the links, but from the context and the name of the URL's, it doesn't appear that any of them refer to Lynfect's Law. Ryan Vesey 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a braver man than I am for clicking on them. It's not really that I doubt the existence of Lynfect or his ... cumbox ... but I do doubt the existence of "Lynfect's Law" as an adage used anywhere (Reddit or no). Google search returns exactly zero hits for the phrase outside of this Wikipedia article, and while GHits aren't gospel, for things like this, I feel it's pretty compelling evidence that the guy completely made it up three seconds before copypasting the Godwin's Law lede and changing some words around.  But no worries, PROD's just as good, I suppose. (God help us if we need to send it to AfD, though...) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And User:ArnoldReinhold decided it for us, so that's that I guess. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dramallama
Glad to see you've picked up Yaniv. Based in his bizarre behaviour at ANI I didn't want to deal with him again. NtheP (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dunno what all that was about. Probably just got frustrated.  It's whatever. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * perhaps we need to start offering iced tea to his type. Putting himself forward for a block to get admin attention is one of the stranger behaviours I've witnessed round here. NtheP (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HostBot 2
Thought you might be interested in weighing in on the invites v. welcomes thread? - J-Mo Talk to Me   Email Me  21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, Sarah, I think I might need it too. I sure can pick 'em. :P Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Yum, thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse/Questions
I don't like to chip in directly at the Teahouse, but a comment: this guy clearly, like many newbies, doesn't understand the difference between user pages and articles. He thinks we are like Myspace, where "your" page is where you write about yourself. He wants to make two articles, about himself and about his company, and he thinks that means making two accounts and writing on their user pages. (They both look pretty spammy to me, but that's another matter). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're totally right! I think I realized this at some point, but then I got distracted by the whole User:SH514 rigmarole.  Lemme see if I can explain it a bit better. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization with templates and deletion
I started discussion at based on previous discussion at, where you participating. Notifying you just in case you would like to repeat your position there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)