User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/4

A kitten for you!
Your page doesn't have any kittens right now and that must be amended. Congrats! You are a fabulous host and editor, and will certainly be an amazing admin. Woot!

heather walls (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC) 

TV Tropes + Your atrocious statements
I have tried it, and it has been ruined by its administration as well, who are now censoring content and denying works from being represented due to their offensive content. Also, this isn't about any other site; it's about Wikipedia, the site that claims to be the ultimate authority for representative fact, and is endorsed by Google so that it comes up at the top of all searches.

Your answers to my questions are absolutely UNACCEPTABLE. They are WRONG. What you just said directly implies that fan work has no intrinsic value whatsoever, and that neither does fiction in and of itself. You and others like you represent everything that is horribly wrong with this site. ResonX (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's how it is. I don't imply that fan work has no intrinsic value as a reliable source or evidence of notability, I say it freely and directly. (Note that that doesn't mean they have no value of any kind, only that they have no weight as a reliable source.) That's the consensus of the community, and that's the policy. You're welcome to try to change the policies (and the community consensus they reflect), but until you do, you have to comply with them. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What I'm telling you and the others to do is to disregard those policies out of your sense of right and wrong, and use your common sense rather than blindly following them. ResonX (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why you got blocked, and probably will get blocked again. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and unrelated tangent: I wasn't too big a fan of that censorship thing on TVTropes either; I forgot about that. I haven't really edited since before then anyway. Still a fun site, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is, it's not the policies that matter. It's what you believe is right. ResonX (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's what you don't get. You're right that the policies aren't what matter.  But you're also wrong: what you as an individual thinks is right doesn't matter, either.  It's what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia that matters, as determined by the community as a whole. The community as a whole has determined (rightly, IMO) that verifiability and notability are important things for the improvement of the wiki.  If you're able to change the community consensus on that, more power to you: the policies aren't set in stone.  But you have to do that first; you can't just ignore the community's consensus and do what you want. That way madness lies. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, explain to me why THESE articles still exist:


 * HARDAC
 * Nigel Powers
 * Alex (comics)

None of those have any indication of notability, yet they and many others like them have survived your purges. Why? What makes them different? ResonX (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing. See the various articles like WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SOFIXIT.  As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (within reason), all kinds of inappropriate stuff gets put in here all the time, and some slip through the cracks.  Everything gets evaluated on its own merits; nothing gets a free pass just because something else snuck in. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I haven't looked closely at it (don't really have time to do so at the moment), but Nigel Powers cites a CNN and a New York Times article, both of which are probably reliable, so that's evidence of notability. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are no more important than any other. It is completely unfair that only a handful of sources should get to decide what's notable, and in any case, the size of the stories and character appearances themselves should be the primary thing warranting an article. ResonX (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They are more reliable than others, because they (speaking in the general case; again, I haven't had the chance to look at these two sources in particular) come from a reputable organization with a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy. They are held to journalistic standards of such, whereas fanworks are held to no standards at all. Anyone can just make up whatever they want in a fanwork, so we have no way of knowing whether it reflects any kind of reality outside the mind of its creator. So, they're not reliable.  And since we care about having reliable sources to verify our content, we need coverage in reliable sources for a subject to be notable.
 * "Fairness" isn't even a consideration; nothing has a right to be considered reliable by Wikipedia, and nothing has a right to an article on Wikipedia, so there can be no injustice in denying them these things. I get that you think that size of stories and character appearances should be the major concern, but pretty much everyone else here disagrees with you.  Sorry, but them's the breaks. You can try to convince the community otherwise (probably pointless, but it's your time to spend), but you cannot just ignore community. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably doing this wrong...
This is most likely wrong, but I'm giving it a shot anyways. I had made a wiki page prematurely with little understanding as to how Wiki actually works (as you can see). It was rightfully tagged for speedy deletion, but still shows up in google searches which I do not want. The page in question is "The Dying Arts". Can this page be completely wiped so it does not show up in searches with "tagged for deletion" next to it? Thanks

Scoogs (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Scoogs
 * Hmm, that's a good question! I don't think there is a way to do that; Google caches pages like that automatically.  I think it'll eventually catch up, but I'm not sure there's any way to speed up the process.  I'll do a little digging on this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've put in a request for Google to clear their cache of the page. This is actually a Google thing, not a Wikipedia thing, so should something similar happen in the future (God forbid!), you can do it yourself, if you want.  There are instructions on what to do at WP:GOOGLECACHE; it does require a gmail account, but other than that, anyone can do it! Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok great thanks! Also, thanks for requesting clearance of the google cache. Much appreciated :)

Scoogs (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Scoogs

Belated congratulations... and the inevitable begging for a favour...
I've realised that the message I intended to post on your talkpage last week congratulating you on your recent mophood must have got lost in the wash... a shame; it was a literary gem, capable of reducing grown men to tears with its lyrical paens to your worthiness and administrative skill. Sadly, I've forgotten it all now, so I'll just say well done.

While I'm here though... You have a bit of a rep as someone who can code the ears off a Gundark; I wondered if you'd mind looking into a wee issue I'm having? I'd been using Mr.Z-man's AFD closing script for a while without any issues, but in the past few weeks it's totally dropped off my radar. The script itself is still in my vector.js page (in desparation and frustration, I even tried adding it to my monobook.js page, even though I don't use Monobook...), and I've bypassed my browser cache so many times that it thinks I'm seeing someone else, but nothing doing; when I view an AfD, all I get are the Move, Protect and Delete options.

I'm not in any way apportioning blame, but it does seem that a number of scripts stopped working when I installed the TeaHouse scripts - RefSegregator, Check links, and RefLinks have all vanished as well. Can't have been anything to do with the TeaHouse scripts, of course; I hear the guy that coded them was some sort of genius... odd coincidence, though.

If you have five or ten minutes to spare, would you mind taking a squizz at the code on my vector.js page, and see if you can spot where it all went horribly wrong - and how to make it all horribly right again? There's probably a barnstar or a picture of some beer in it for you... Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not knowing anything about coding, I'd suggest that you remove all of the Teahouse scripts. See if the broken ones are still broken.  If they're not, add the Teahouse scripts back one by one so you can figure out which one breaks the others.  I've seen a number of people discussing script problems at VPT so this might be part of a bigger problem. Ryan Vesey 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look. I see that in your common.js, you have a  ; that actually breaks things, so I've taken it out (admin is scary stuff!).  That might have been the problem, so try it out and let me know if it works.  I'll keep looking in the meantime.  And thanks for the (somewhat nebulous) congratulations; the thought is appreciated! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice Ryan, but as it turns out - Writ, you are a god amongst editors, thank you so much! No idea how that protection template found its way in there, but its removal seems to have fixed everything. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome! You're not the first person I've helped who's had a page protection template in their js pages that's breaking their stuff; I wonder where that comes from. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I installed those scripts via the automated button at the Host Lounge when I signed up as a host, so it might be worth looking at how that process works - I made no manual edits to the .js page, that I can recall. Is one of the script pages protected, by any chance? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure; I didn't make that process. Let me take a look; that must be what's doing it. (also, a page that installs Javascript for people is only semi-protected?? That's all kinds of awful; looks like a job for my as-yet unused protection button.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: wasn't that the point?
(in response to this)

given the circumstances of the creation, i am pretty sure that the whole point of the page is POINTY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that, because he's |already used it in a discussion with another editor. I think he's serious (which, in a way, is worse). Unless there's more background that I'm missing? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c)but I have reverted myself and will let the essay speak for itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi and a Teahouse gadget question
Hey Writ! I see you're not only an admin but now also a god this month and a beautiful man - congrats all around! (I'm stalking your talk today, guilty as charged) ;-) So, I've still got a bee in my bonnet about figuring out how to get Equaczion's code for the reply script that he wrote added into the Teahouse questions gadget...it seems like it would make things a lot easier for new editors to respond to questions in the Teahouse if they had that nice reply call to action all built into the interface.  Looks like the last discussion about this ended with a suggestion to integrate it into the existing gadget, but someone with skillz and admin permissions is needed to do that.  Might also help to be godly and beautiful, I don't know ;-)  Any chance you'd be interested in taking a look? Siko (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait--he's a god too? I missed that: my apologies. Hail Writ Keeper! Drmies (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a good month, I guess. I'll take a look, Siko. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that should do it. Let know of any bugs (or report them to one of the various Teahouse talk pages, of course). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tests?
Hey Writ-- I just noticed this set of test edits made to the Questions page-- are you testing out yet another one of your helpful scripts? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no; see the thread just above this one. I'm trying to integrate Equazcion's script into the general Teahouse gadget that's controlled through the preferences, so that it can be on by default for all the guests. (The "no" is that the script isn't mine, but who's counting?) By the way, I chose that question because it's one that nobody will be looking for an actual reply; the asker has since been indefblocked. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hello sir,As i know there are no shortcuts to become an administrator but I am dreaming to be an administrator one day.I am not deserving now then please tell me the various fields and tasks in which i need to to enhance myself so i will apply for sysop in future.Thanking you ---zeeyanketu talk to me 08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Iron Age
Hullo. I am an experienced editor here but I have a problem/query. I made a recent edit to the Iron Age page. it appears in the edit history but not in the article. Never seen this before. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.  Smokey TheCat  09:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Smokey, what's up? If you're referring to this edit, I do see it in the article, at the end of the "chronology" section. Perhaps you just need to bypass your cache, though that's not usually a problem. As an aside, I feel like that addition is something that needs a source to back it up; it's not as who should say controversial, but it's unintuitive. While it makes sense metallurgically, as the IP says, the term isn't metallurgical, it's archaeological, used to roughly date prehistoric societies.  Applying it to the present day doesn't really make sense, as it's just a construct with no significance outside archaeology.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From:Kameroo70
Hello.My name is Kameron Linnere.I saw your message on my user talk page.I like that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameroo70 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for your helpfulness

 * You're welcome! It can definitely be tough to keep 'em all straight at times. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

APA Tactical - New Version in User Space

 * Hi I have a new version its a lot simpler and should not break any policies I hope. Could you take a look when time allows. Thanks.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRobinsonOP/APA_Tactical SRobinsonOP (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Writ Keeper any feedback on the page?SRobinsonOP (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Srobinson, thanks for the poke! I've been a bit busy lately,and I forgot about this. It's a bit better, but it's still not ready for primetime. It still reads a bit more like a press release than a wikipedia article.  Things like asking the question "What is APA Tactical?" in the article itself just don't fit.  Another problem is original research.  All of the claims about the system that you make must be backed by citations in reliable, independent sources.  In your article, it's hard to tell what is original and what isn't, since there aren't any inline citations. See this guide for information on inline citations.  Finally, I think thearticle is just too long.  There's a bit of repetition, and a bit of unnecessary detail, and I think that just cutting down the article will go some way to fixing the other two problems, as well.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. All the Citations at the bottom of the article are from National newspapers and Magazines so all independent. I have PNGimages of them all. But cant put these in until the article is up. I shall put some in line Citations per the Wiki guide. Be back soon. 114.43.79.64 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. All the Citations at the bottom of the article are from National newspapers and Magazines so all independent. I have PNGimages of them all. But cant put these in until the article is up. I shall put some in line Citations per the Wiki guide. Be back soon SRobinsonOP (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A new version is up much shorter with Citations, is this more inline with what would be acceptable? Thanks for your assistance.SRobinsonOP (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

XxFagSorryxx
So you found the block button--good. Sometimes one shoots from the hip and one edit is enough. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, had to happen sometime. I think the only tool in the box I haven't used yet is revdel, which is good because I still don't really get how it works.  I'll play around with it sometime on my test account. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I use that one the most, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, you had the perfect opportunity a few minutes ago. (But I took care of it :)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, like I said: not entirely sure how it works, and I didn't want that to be my testing ground. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

 * Darn, thought I had it contributed, otherwise thanks.-- GoShow (............................)   15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the downside of being competent :)
Since you seem to know what you are doing, would you be willing to take a glance at the table in 2001-02_Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_team. I'd like the headings centered, but I tried a couple things and failed. I bet it is easy, but I'm just not seeing it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. The problem was that you were formatting everything as if they were CSS variables, but align isn't; it needed to be space-separated outside the CSS string, not semicolon-separated.  Also, some of your other CSS stuff was outside the string, so it wasn't getting applied.  I moved some stuff around; you should be good to go. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good. I actually thought I was doing something wrong not having the semicolon, so I added it. I didn't realize that align wasn't a CSS variable.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! You can tell because it needs its own quotes around the argument. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud
Hello, Writ Keeper. There is now a discussion on the Sigmund Freud talk page. It consisted of the editor I was having a dispute with announcing that my arguments were "bogus" and not giving any reasons for that view. The discussion sure looks like it's going nowhere. Please may I re-post a third opinion request now? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! It's just that, with only one person in the conversation, there's not much for a third opinion to do, since 3O has no way of engaging the second person or getting him to agree on something. If he's used the talk page, then the dialogue can form. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reposted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

right
So, you foresee in your crystal ball that Uncle G was gonna post a message on my talk page, which means that we'll have to get to writing a bunch of articles again, and you decided to have an excuse already by breaking Twinkle? That's great, Writ Keeper, just great. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh, thanks! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse
Just wanted to remind you that you're now maitre d', though I assume you have your script installed, just thought I'd give you a heads up just in case. Go  Phightins  !  02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kellie Madison
Hey can you tell me why you are deleting the page?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeconsult (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jeconsult. Sure! There are two main reasons.  First, it's a copyright violation.  The text of the article has been directly copied and pasted from this website.  Wikipedia is very picky about the licensing of its articles; we require any text (other than brief, clearly-marked quotations) to be licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, which is what Wikipedia itself is licensed under.  The general gist of this license is that the material is free to be reused and modified as long as credit to the original author is given, and that the subsequent works are also licensed under CC-BY-SA.  The website you copied the bio from says in its copyright notice that all rights are reserved, which means that it's not compatible with the CC-BY-SA license, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.


 * However! There is another, equally serious problem. The article text, even if the copyright issue was resolved, is too promotional for Wikipedia.  Our articles are supposed to follow a neutral point of view, and the article reads more like a marketing fluff piece than a neutral, encyclopedic article. The article would need to be completely rewritten in order to fix it.


 * Now, this isn't saying that there can't be any article on Kellie Madison. I haven't really looked at that to judge it, as the other problems with the present article were too severe to ignore.  But if you want to write the article, the best way to do it is by first looking up reliable sources that cover Kellie.  There will need to be multiple reliable sources, enough to cover Wikipedia's notability guideline which is what decides whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not.  The article will need to be written with only what's in the sources, using inline citations as appropriate, without copying and pasting the words directly.  Writing a Wikipedia article is a very tricky business, and there's no way to make it easier.  But if you have any more questions, feel free to ask me again here, or you can ask at the Teahouse, which is a place for users to ask any questions they like in a friendly, relaxed atmosphere.  Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Hey Writ Keeper, my page on the website http://sponsorchewbacca.weebly.com has been place for speedy deletion, even though the website and information are real. Feel free to check the link if you need to verify the information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoogah (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Aoogah! It's not that the website isn't real; it'd be hard to deny that. It's that it isn't notable. Y'see, Wikipedia has rules (well, they're more guidelines, but still) about what should and shouldn't have articles on Wikipedia, which is collectively called "notability".  Notability on Wikipedia can mean a few different things, but at its core, it means that a subject will have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject. there's a whole spiel about why notability is a thing, but I'll spare you, unless you're interested.  The point is that it's not enough that a website exists, it must also be notable to have a Wikipedia article. The article you wrote just didn't give any evidence for notability, or even any reason why it could be notable.  No worries, but them's the breaks.  If you have more questions, you're welcome to ask, etiher here or at the Teahouse, if that's your thing.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westervelt
Writkeeper: If you look more closely at the evolution of the vandalism of this page, you'll see that these common-user sobriquets start each round of vandalism with tentative "test" edits, then they "sandwich" other edits into further minor revisions. Indeed, my reversion had valid bases. If in doubt, please check with other admin. empowered editors who have contributed to this page. Meadowlarkmelon (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at other admins: one of them reinstated the edit you reverted. Even if you're right, that's still not a valid reason to senselessly revert good edits. Don't revert good edits as vandalism, even if they do come from someone you suspect is a vandal. If he is a vandal, he will be dealt with when he vandalizes, not before. Judge by deeds, not assumptions. If you think the editor is a sockpuppet (which is what you're implying), then you should open a sockpuppet investigation case at the appropriate board. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, WK: I am very new to this process and I appreciate the help. Could you clarify how to open a sockpuppet investigation? I never implied that, I actually stated outright that these usernames belong to one actual person. I'll try to follow the links already provided, and I appreciate your help. My reversion of these edits, by the way, while perhaps in conflict with Wiki regulations, is/was not "senseless". I hope to get better at this. I have actually met Westervelt and I find this stalking to be tasteless. Why isn't there an image of this living person included with this page? Meadowlarkmelon (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, "senseless" was perhaps the wrong word on my part. The point is that it was a useful edit; even if it comes from someone who's up to no good, the edit should stand on its own merits.  No worries, it's not that big a deal.  Just keep in mind that "vandalism" has a deliberately narrow definition, and it's an act, not a state of mind.  At the end of the day, it's the edit that makes vandalism, not the editor, if you see what I mean. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to your query about why there's no photo, look around the wiki, and you'll see that lots of articles about living people have no photographs. That's because we require (in nearly all cases of a living person) that someone must have provided us with a free photo of that person. You can't just rip any picture off the web and add it. If you have a photo you took of Westervelt and would be willing to donate it, we'd be glad to have it. Otherwise, sometimes you can find a photo online and convince the photo's owner to release it under the appropriate licensing. Lady  of  Shalott  03:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hi, I'm Drmies. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at User talk:Drmies, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please don't disagree with Mandarax, as you seemed to be doing in this edit. There is only one proper attitude to take toward the God of Wiki Gnomes, and it can be expressed by adding to your user page.'' Drmies (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, but I've already promised myself to the daemon-sultan Azathoth. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not such a bad article for such a topic. BTW, that is a very nicely written sentence. I'm glad we met in Washington. Are you doing anything exciting these days? Drmies (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, not much. I'm interviewing for new jobs; I had another interview with Google this morning, which would be amazing. But other than that, I just keep on keepin' on. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, same here--at least you had an interview. I'll keep my fingers crossed: good luck to you. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and you, too! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

question

 * Could u look here.Thanks and best regards--George Animal (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it, no worries. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You broke da Wiki!
You did fix it rather quickly, but scores of people are having problems even after clearing the cache, maybe their ISPs are caching the old CSS, I'm not sure. It's more amusing than anything, but you did break the wiki rather effectively. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, no I didn't! Drmies is full of shit! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't you? Oh well, sucks to be you then, since I think everyone is believing him.  That is even funnier than the mistake.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in this edit summary, I nearly wrote "my abusive wikifather", but oh well. I'm quite happy to be publicly vilified and humiliated pour encourager les autres. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, destroying the wiki, even if it isn't true, just gives you street cred. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Stay calm

 * 'Twas a joke; all in good fun, my dear Drmies. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, it just happened again, just once, on Articles for deletion/International Marxist Tendency (2nd nomination), and went away after I hit Shift+Reload. I'm going to check your recent edits, Writ Keeper. Put the blunt down just for a second... Drmies (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My Talk Page
I was unfairly banned, called a twat, bullied, and humiliated. I am Cycling Road's little brother. I didn't impersonate mods or flood a chat room. Also what's wrong with the article Accidental Flood? Is there a such thing? I type fast and refuse to slow down. What username are you? I was MichaelXD. (MaxXD1 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't go there much any more; I haven't been on more than once or twice in the last two years, I'd imagine. I used to need to for trading, but it's no longer necessary. Look, the point is that, while yes, I can see how you could've been wrongly banned, and yes, that sucks, editing Wikipedia like you have been isn't going to help anything. I'd be glad to help you out if you want to try to edit Wikipedia constructively, but I can't help you out with your issues with Serebii, and neither can anyone or anything else here.


 * Anyhoo, the problem with your addition about accidental flooding is that, while it's certainly a plausible thing that could happen, we need the information in our articles to be backed by citations and references to reliable sources. If there aren't articles on reputable tech websites that talk about accidental IRC flooding, then we really have no reason to be talking about it. Basically, you were adding things based on your own personal experiences, rather than what's found in the sources. That's what we call original research, and it's actually not allowed at Wikipedia.  I know that might sound weird or counter-intuitive, but there's a reason for it. If you can find an article about that (and there might well be one!), then you're welcome to add it into the article, along with a citation to the source you found.  But unless you do find that source, you shouldn't add it.  You see what I mean? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So what sites do you get sources from? Anyway I was going there for Pokemon and they kicked me off and my friends. What's wrong with the article Unfair Ban? I know what it is and how to define it. {MaxXD1 (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC))


 * It depends on the subject, and how much work you're willing to put into it. Many (perhaps most) of the best sources on a lot of subjects aren't online at all, or locked away within databases like JSTOR.  A good way to get a sense of the sources you could use might be to take a look at the "References" section of articles with similar subject matter, like IRC or DDoS.  And of course, there's always Google searches; Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar are all useful tools, in addition to a simple web search.  The thing to keep in mind here is that any source you'll be using needs to conform to the policy on reliable sources, which basically means that something must be published by an establishment with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it needs to be independent of the subject of the article (which, in this case, isn't much of a concern).


 * There's no real shortcut or way to make contributing to articles easier in that respect; it's a lot of work, no question about it. I think it's worth it, but you definitely have to be willing to put in time and effort.


 * For the unfair ban thing, the problem is the same: it's just not enough that you *know* what it is, you also have to be able to *show* that it's been reported in reliable sources. There's a phrase that people used to use about Wikipedia: "verifiability, not truth". What that means is that, while we of course want our articles to be true, mere truth isn't enough; they also need to be verifiably true, through references and citations to reliable sources. A fact being true is a necessary condition of being included in a Wikipedia article, but it's not sufficient; it must also be verifiable. The reason for this is that nobody knows who you are on the Internet.  Nobody knows who it really is that's posting what on Wikipedia, so we can't just take people's word on it.  They could be lying, or they could simply be wrong, and we'd have no way of knowing if they are or not.  So, we require verifiability through citations, so that we can have at least some kind of assurance that our information is correct.  It bears repeating: our information is only as good as the sources that back it; if something cant't have the backing of a source, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I edit Accidental Flood back with the content it was in if I add this source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC Would that make it any better? (MaxXD1 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Which source do you mean? If you're talking about the Wikipedia page for IRC, then no, that doesn't count. :) Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source: think of the kind of reference loops we'd create! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia adding any sources for anything I read. It's the only source I can find while browsing. (MaxXD1 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Well not everything is perfect, of course. That's just the nature of the beast at Wikipedia, which after all is written entirely by volunteers like us.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't fix what we can when we see it, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you go on serebiiforums can you ask who banned me with my first account? Tell them it was MichaelXD and I was Cycling Road's brother who was Max's friend. (MaxXD1 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but no. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It's true. How come I didn't get another notice that you responded to me on your page? (MaxXD1 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Oh, those are placed manually. I don't usually bother after a few back-and-forth comments; by then, people generally know to watch this page, and some people find the notices annoying. Anyway, the reason is because frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Who can I talk to on here instead? (MaxXD1 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

Some falafel for you!

 * Ha, thanks! Go for it; I got the general design from the notice at the top of Wikipedia talk:Teahouse myself, so I couldn't lay claim to it even if I wanted to. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you?
So do you pine for the good old days on WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Me? Nah, I wasn't even here. I'm only a year and change old.  Saying "What an outfit", along with your general point, made me think of that saying, that's all.  I do wish I was around back in the day, but that's strictly academic: I don't know what it was really like. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly was not as highly "regimented" and it was not as complicated. The wikicodeing especially with templates, is getting really complicated. The bureaucracy is now really complicated. There are now some really good tools for editing saving all that hand coding for categories, XfDs, reverting etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Allele template
It does fit G8. It's dependent on the deleted parent article Allele (band) and deleted sub-articles pertaining to the band's work. Tell me why it should have to slog through TFD for God knows how long. In fact, Allele (band) is a salted title, so there's no way in Hell this template would ever be kept or serve a purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies will be at the AN thread. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

APA New New Version

 * Hi Writ Keeper.

When you get time can you take a look? Thanks SRobinsonOP (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, SRobinson! It still needs more inline citations and some trimming; the middle few sections are what's really hurting it.  A lot of what's in those sections might not be citable, but that's usually a good sign that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with, as it might be going itno too much detail to be backed by sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Writkeeper, thanks for continuing to assist me here. I am not sure what else I can do the middle sections simply say what the system is I am not sure how else to prove this other than the various Newspaper and magazine Articles. I can take the mention of the TV appearance out though that is quite a historic event. I shall trim it down and have a look at other examples on wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRobinsonOP (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Writ Keeper I have taken out some of the middle section. I am not sure what else I can do as we have Citations from independent magazines, newspapers included plus I have PNG images which can be used for supporting evidence. Let me know how this looks if still not okay then I might need to make it just one section about APA and then another for Citations and References keeping very short.SRobinsonOP (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally I have just found I have access to a number of official publications by the National Police Agency, Taipei, Taiwan on the subject of APA and its use within their official training. I have looked at the Wiki guides as to what is permissible and I am not sure still as to whether these could be used. Thanks. SRobinsonOP (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!
Mind giving me a hand here? I just need your mop for a second. — Theo polisme  23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Howdy
I had some trouble on Explorer today; Twinkle wasn't working but I think it was some fault of Explorer's, or the system administrators, involving something called a dll. You didn't do it, which makes me wonder: are you alright? And on another note: does it feel like spring where you're at also? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A question
Regarding my dustup with Yworo, I would like to let a few days go by for emotions to settle and then open a discussion with him, however I've booted him off my talk page and therefore feel odd about posting on his. Would it be asking too much of you to act as an intermediary, only to the extent of asking him if he would allow an inquiry from me? I wouldn't expect you to act as a mediator or anything like that, just to see if you could get the ball rolling. If you would rather not, I'd certainly understand, but if you're willing, maybe you could drop a note to him in a couple of days, and a report to me that it's OK to proceed? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you like. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, sorry to impose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to rescind my request. I'm, frankly, feeling a bit depressed and sorry for myself, and I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything Wikipedia-wise at the moment; and Yworo's behavior since my message above has not been such that I see any real purpose in talking to him. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, no worries. I was going to ask you again before doing it anyway; after seeing the latest thread, I didn't think it would be very productive.  Do what ya gotta do, and hopefully I'll see you around. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. Yworo just hit a bunch of the articles that were part of his recent campaign (Topper (film). Broadway Melody of 1936, North Adams, Massachusetts, and Gramercy Park, an article I took from 9K to 40k). I thought there was supposed to be something of a cease fire in effect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need an interaction ban? That would be fine with me, as I've never gone out of my way to cross paths with him, as he has to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed there was something like that in effect, but since the ANI thread closed, I guess it's not unreasonable for him to think it was over. I'm a bit out of my depth here. :/ A two-way interaction ban (I wish it didn't have the word "ban" in it, since it makes it sound like a huge scary sanction) sounds like a good idea to me, but I think we need community support for that, and I don't really know how that works.
 * I'm not really sure what to do; I hate to seem like I'm abandoning you, but I'm still pretty new at this. ANI and the like are not things I've really done before, and not something I expected to do, either, but I somehow got drawn into this.  I hate to make it look like I'm abandoning you, that's not my intention, but you might be in better hands elsewhere. :/ Maybe Dennis? You know him already, I expect, but he's much more experienced with this kind of thing than I am. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, on advice from Dennis, I've sent Yworo a friendly email. I'd really like this to be concluded without any formal sanctions for anyone, if possible. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no druthers for formal sanctions for anyone, I'd simply like to be able to edit the encyclopedia without worrying that someone's going to be targeting my contributions. Thanks for your effort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, my experience is that you are correct that a formal interaction ban would have to be imposed by the community, unless we were both to agree to it voluntarily. I would have no objection to agreeing to a IB similar to those that exist between Prioryman & Delicious carbuncle, or between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou as detailed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's also the question of off-Wiki coordination between Yworo and CurbChain, as indicated here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, and I'm somewhat concerned by it, but I'm willing to AGF on it in absence of onwiki behavior. Not much I can do about it, even if I was convinced they were up to something (which I'm not). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious if you ever had a response you can talk about from Yworo. I ask because this is a pretty good indication that he continues to follow my contributions. (Not that his edit wasn't helpful, it was, and, indeed, I had thoughts of making the same change myself.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not, though if I do, I would imagine it would be onwiki anyway. That's not great, but if he's editing constructively and not reverting you... I mean, I'm hoping that the most recent thread on his talk page means that he doesn't want to be involved in any offwiki collusion with Curb Chain, which is definitely for the best, and a positive sign for future sanity.  I'd say just ignore it as best you can unless he starts reverting you or starting pointless discussions on talk pages or something. :/
 * And to be honest, if his intention is to just keep an eye out for specifically the whitespace and fixed image size things, then--while I strongly disagree with his methods--I can sympathize a bit with his goal. If you don't mind taking advice from someone who has much less experience of Wikipedia than you do, I think it'd be best if you just leave those issues alone. :P I agree with you on the whitespace; I don't think I agree with you on the image sizes (haven't looked that closely at it), but in both cases, I'm just not sure they're battles worth fighting, you know?  Wikipedia is oft-touted as a collaborative website; that does mean that sometimes you have to give ground, and in this case, I think the easiest solution would be for you to just roll your eyes and let 'em have their way.  Of course, that doesn't work all the time, and I definitely don't recommend that you surrender any time anyone uses unsavory tactics against you (not that you would!). But at some point, we have to look at the outcomes here: I think both of those issues are pretty minor, and I really don't think that "fixing" them is worth all the pointless drama and bad blood that it would entail. Your mileage may vary, of course, and I'm by no means the last word on any of this; just my opinion as a fellow (still somewhat newish) editor. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, which I appreciate. These are indeed concerns that I actually have given a great deal of thought to, and will continue to do so.  I'm also not quite as bull-headed as I perhaps might appear to be.  There are other formatting choices that I have made in the past, and when someone took the time to explain what the actual, real-world problem with them was, instead of simply decrying them because they went against the Manual of Style, I stopped, and even took the time to go back and undo them.  So far, I have not found the arguments for other choices either convincing or, in some cases, reasonable -- but, as you say YMMV.  I had hoped to open up a dialogue with Yworo to find out more about his argument concerning problems for the visually impaired, since he did not make it clear just what the problem was, but that (as you know) went by the by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ANI has been closed, and had I have the resources, I would have found this before it closed.Curb Chain (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What? BMK's editing history was prominently discussed--by you--on ANI. You're more than welcome here if you want to try constructive conversation, or even complaints and/or criticism, but if your only intent is shitstirring and agitating, then I'd rather you didn't post here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your hope that Yworo and Curb Chain would not continue to work together to harass me has not been fulfilled, as you can see here, which resulted in this and this, as well as these. It really is antithetical to the concept of collegiality to have two editors working together to follow the work of another editor to revert entirely defensible edits in the name of strict MoS interpretation, something about which there is no consensus, and about which ArbCom has recently warned several times. If I were harming the encyclopedia, that would be another thing entirely, but any such argument is totally hyperbole, and does not justify their WP:Wikihounding. I know that at this time their actions are small scale, and you would be perfectly justified in saying "Why doesn't he just ignore them?" but I've been the subject of this before, from User:Bouket (who had to be warned off by Toddst1 and Drmies ) and, much earlier a user named User:Miami33139 who persisted in following me around and had to be warned by Jehocmanl he also harassed another editor and was eventually sanctioned for it as the result of an ArbCom action. There have been others as well so I am very aware that this kind of thing can get out of control if not nipped in the bud. I really think that some sort of admin action is required here, in the form of an official warning to these two not to trawl through my contributions looking for ways to annoy me. If my contributions are as bad as they seem to think they are, they will be corrected in the normal course of time by other editors, and do not require (or justify) vigilante action by a Gang of Two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Preloading.Script.Again.
Well, I'm still at it, feeling silly at this point. Here's where I'm at:

1) So there's this code: importScript("User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript.js");

...on this page: User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript1

2) The following link is used to preload the contents of that page onto an editor's common.js page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript1&title=Special%3AMyPage%2Fcommon.js

3) The problem is, when I don't use 'includeonly' tags, no text is copied. When I DO use 'includeonly' tags, the tags are copied as well, and I get a fatal exception (MWException) error when I save the page.

Any thoughts? And thank you for your continued technical support and patience... Ocaasi (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the fatal exception is because we're trying to add a new section to a .js page, even though that's not really our goal. I don't know if that's by design or a bug, but we were having the same issue with the Teahouse installer, which is why we eventually pulled it. Could be a bug introduced in a recent release of MediaWiki. Not sure about the includeonly, still looking into that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that complicates things, because it looks like it actually only copies the importscript when it's includeonly AND a new section, which may fail on both counts. Thanks for taking a look at includeonly. I'm not sure why this preload-import deal is so difficult as it seems conceptually straightforward. Cheers and have a good weekend, Ocaasit &#124; c 02:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your revert and protection..
Thanks for the advice. Will try on the talk pages first If I want to make a significant edit 142.161.182.190 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I didn't even read the edits, other than scanning them to see if you were the same editor that got blocked earlier. This is because I have no opinion about the content issue, and I don't care to form one. That's not an admin's job. The point isn't whether your intro is or isn't better, the point is that you don't get to keep adding it over everyone else telling you not to. This is the time for discussion of it on the talk page, not edit warring. I could've blocked you; it's pretty obvious who you are, and even if you aren't, continuing the edit war is probably enough. But against my (perhaps better) judgement, I left you unblocked, because maybe, maybe, you'll start a discussion of this in the proper place (the article's talk page) and keep it there, now that you can't continue to edit-war on the article itself. And maybe you'll accept that consensus might in fact be against you, and that you might not get your way. That happens in Wikipedia; it's what it means to edit in a collaborative environment. I doubt that you'll do this; I'd guess that you'll spend the 48 hours kvetching and moaning to all who will listen, and many who won't, and then when the 48 hours are up, you'll reinsert the changes again and you'll be blocked for edit-warring. But this is your chance to prove me wrong. Please take it.


 * A few more pieces of advice: any time someone says that "I know I am right", that is a very bad sign for civil discourse. Editing collaboratively entails accepting the possibility that you are wrong, because it is always there. You're right that Wikipedia is for facts, but the facts are determined by what's in the sources. Wikipedia is only as good as the sources that back it up. You may know that something is true, but you cannot put it into Wikipedia unless it is backed by a reliable source.  There used to be a saying around here: "verifiability, not truth".  A lot of people were angered by that saying, because we do care about what's true.  But the point is that truth isn't enough. Things also need to be verifiable.  Both are important, and both are necessary. When editors start throwing the "t-word" around, it's another bad sign. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Drmies, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You knew you had this coming, right?  — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 05:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm stopping the template war now: otherwise, we might bring Wikipedia down with us. Just know: WP:DTTR. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Very well. Although I'm still waiting for the day I get to use the only template designed for regulars. And considering some of the sorcery Drmies accuses you of, I may very well get the chance. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 06:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there's also WP:Do template the regulars, so, y'know, whatevs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of refactoring comments, it occurs to me that because of my reply you might not notice this. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 06:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I noticed it. Kinda hard to miss 8KB being removed, actually.  I'm hoping this means that he's come to his senses and will actually seriously try discussion rather than edit-warring. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Replied just as sent me your YGM.  — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 19:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * You're welcome! I'll take this in Equazcion's name; he did most of the heavy lifting, after all. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but incorporating it to make the feature visible was a long time coming and is truly appreciated. Also, Equazcion seems to be on extended wiki-break so we'll have to send him his when he comes back I guess! Siko (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Just tried it - you don't. How disappointing. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beetlejuice service is extra. Thanks, but as above, kipod picked up my slack, so he deserves some thanks, too. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

rmv now-redundant script call?
Hi Writ. What do you think about removing  from the Teahouse scripts preload page? Seems redundant, now that you've incorporated Equazcion's response script into the Teahouse gadget. Cheers - J-Mo  Talk to Me   Email Me  21:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing that extra part! :D heather walls (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Trappists
You might want to take a look at User:Curb Chain's actions on this article, and his comments on Talk:Trappists. Do you really think this editor has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually...yes. If I were a betting man, I would peg CC's age at 14ish (give or take a year or two). I don't think he has insight into the rules (read: clue), which is why most of his edits are of a mechanical/rigorous-rule-application type, and why he's so stringent about the MoS. I think he susbcribes to the infamous trope of "Wikipedia is a video game", and is doing his best to "win".  He probably genuinely believes that he's helping Wikipedia, but he doesn't realize yet how Wikipedia wants to be helped. He doesn't realize yet that rules are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. He doesn't realize yet that the rules serve the encyclopedia (and through transition, the readers), not the other way around.  In short, he hasn't understood IAR yet, which is a critical point in the development of any so-called Wikipedian.


 * I can sympathize with him to an extent, because I started out as a "policy wonk" myself (and still am one, to an extent), performing similar tasks; things like vandalism patrol and typo-fixing. I've turned the corner; he hasn't yet.  More importantly, though, he hasn't realized there's a corner to turn yet, and is thus charging headlong into a wall.  In his haste to "win", he has blinded himself to the possibility that there is no winning.  I sometimes think that the best option would be to block him for a week (the rationale would probably have to mention WP:CIR) and give him an assignment for that week to meditate on what "ignore all rules" means.  But, I can't do that.  (Like I said, policy wonk.)  Moreover, it would alienate him, making him believe that he's "lost"--not just lost, but that we've "beaten" him--and he will leave in a huff. I don't think that's a great solution, even if it ends up being the one that's necessary.


 * Now, to the issue at hand, I don't think he's technically wrong (which, if he in fact follows my model above, is unsurprising). His methods were wrong; if he objected to "critically-acclaimed" or "popular" or whatever, he should've removed those phrases, reworking them as necessary for grammar and flow, rather than removing the entire sentences. And that might not be a bad change. But this is a content dispute; I can't decide the content issue wearing my admin hat.  The edit-war has cooled off, so I'm not going to be blocking anyone or protecting the page for that. in short, I don't think there's any admin action to be performed at the moment.  If you want to start an RFC/U for Curb Chain, I'd guess that you'd be justified in doing so.  I think that would be a tad hasty, but it's the next step, and I'd imagine there are enough issues to examine.  (Disclaimer: I'm not particularly familiar with RFC/Us or how they work, so my advice for that is not worth much.) also, I've been out of town, so sorry for not aswering this before Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, looking at the edit history, this isn't the kind of thing you should be using rollback for;You need to be leaving at least a little bit more descriptive of an edit summary. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insights into CC, which feel very right to me. I will try my best to keep them in mind in the future.  I don't have great faith in RFC/U as a methodology, either conceptually or practically.  To me, they appear primarily useful as a necessary step when heading towards arbitration, and rarely bring about any lasting change in an editor's behavior. As for the rollback, I know that sometimes that button is very tempting to hit, especially in the heat of the moment, so I probably need to review the policy on its use, which I will do.  Thanks for taking the time to respond, I'm glad to hear that you were just out of town, and there was no other more serious reason for the delay.  Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MikeFromCanmore in general and at talk pages
Hi, Writ Keeper. I noticed that you blocked User:MikeFromCanmore's latest registered sockpuppet. Thanks for that. But I also saw that you did so without reverting his posts to talk pages; any reason for not reverting him at the talk pages? Like I stated at Dennis Brown's talk page, as he is indefinitely blocked, his posts are supposed to be reverted as well...unless they are made to his own talk page. He especially shouldn't be allowed to post at WikiProject talk pages. Allowing him to post at any of these talk pages, unless it is his own, is welcoming him in a way. It is allowing his disruption, and therefore allowing him to get his way, even though not completely. Trying to discuss anything with him at these talk pages, which, as you know, is fruitless, would mean continuously discussing things with a blocked IP or blocked registered editor...as he would need to keep using a different IP or re-registering just to comment. His posts, besides being faulty, are invalid because he is indefinitely blocked. I've reverted him at these talk pages and am tempted to request page protection for all of them. Right now, I'm trying to revert again at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices, but I keep getting the following message: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error."

Also, it would be good to keep listing his sockpuppets at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MikeFromCanmore. 220.255.2.109 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul Barlow reverted him at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices. 220.255.2.122 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Writ, just out of curiosity, I take it Mike's IP range is too broad to rangeblock? — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mr. Writ Keeper, for all your help in dealing with User:MikeFromCanmore. For your revert at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices and your reverts of him at articles. Because I can't reply to your comment at Ms. Alison's talk page yet (not yet WP:Autoconfirmed for that), I'm replying here to say that my sister is innocent. See her talk page.


 * User:Diego Moya and I also had a conversation about his revert of your reverting User:MikeFromCanmore.


 * I altered the title of this section of your talk page by adding "in general and" to better represent this discussion. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Halo Jerk. I saw your and Diego's conversation; if Diego thinks the edit is fine, he's perfectly welcome to reinstate it. The content itself isn't really the problem per se; the problem is that, at first, MikeFromCanmore refused to stop inserting it after it had been challenged (i.e. edit-warring), and now, that it's being reposted by a blocked user evading his block.  Diego has been around for a long time (much longer than I have, in fact!), so it's a pretty safe bet that he knows the score: if someone else objects to the content he added, as is what happened to MikeFromCanmore, Diego will know not to keep readding it, but instead to seek consensus on the talk page first, and he'll accept it if consensus doesn't go his way.


 * I've seen Flyer22's talk page as well, but I can't really say much about it, because I'm not familiar with the details of her situation. Alison has confirmed, through use of the checkuser tool, that MikeFromCanmore is not her sock, but I don't know about the rest of the situation. I know Dennis Brown is familiar with it; he's a very fair and patient guy, so I trust him to do what's right here. I'll take a closer look if you like, but I doubt I'll be able to turn up any new information. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean a further look into my sister's latest block case? It's been resolved, Mr. Writ Keeper. Ms. Alison spoke with both me and my sister in a Skype discussion and she's confirmed that I exist and that two different people have been editing Wikipedia from my sister's household. I guess people will either trust her judgment about the editing issue or they won't. But I plan to prove my worth around here, and won't be causing my sister any more trouble. Not intentionally. I mean, if I see people destructively editing the articles she has edited, I will be reporting them, and it'll be difficult not to revert them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, great, glad to hear it! Carry on!  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was User:MikeFromCanmore's first time adding information to that article. Before, he just kept removing information. The article has WP:Pending changes protection now. So that should help you and others protect the article. Peace. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Email
I sent you one to explain a few things better from our ANI discussion. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Writ Keeper, help. I'm stepping away to check if my blood sugar is to blame for my screw-up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done; we should be good now. A bit more detailed explanation of what happened is at your talk page.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

table converter
hi Writ.

i liked your script a lot. i was not familiar with the "data:" protocol on the "a" element as a way to save a file. however, there are several things i'd like to suggest. the main one, is not to trigger the table conversion on page load: this basically means that whoever uses the script pays the full conversion cost of each table on every page they open, regardless whether they are interested in downloading the content or not.

i also think the little trick i suggested with ":visible" does not actually work: it cause a loss of all the text which is straight inside "td" element without wrapping of another element.

one more thing is the "old style" of exposing the functions to the global namespace. it is more common to wrap the "document.ready" around an anonymous function, so no function names leak into the global scope, which i think is a good habit and reduces the probability of function name collision.

the last thing is just petty: i do not like so much the incremental building of the string: i much rather work with arrays, and when all the ducks are in a row, use "join", so the operation becomes a nested "$(selector).map(somefunction).toArray.join", where the external goes over the rows and joins the strings with close-quote/newline/openquote, and the internal one goes over the cells, and joins them by quote/comma/quote: all that's missing are the very first and very last quotes.

the most difficult thing was filtering out the hidden stuff. unfortunately, the ":visible" thing does not work: it filters out the simple text nodes (i.e., it only leaves "real" dom elemnts). so the next thing was to filter out the hidden stuff. it would be easy to just remove it directly (find(':hidden').remove), but this would mean that once the conversion runs, the page would be crippled. so the next thing is to use "clone", but unfortunately, once you clone, *everything* is considered to be "hidden", because the cloned element itself is not part of the page... so instead of using the elegant ':hidden' selector, i used the ugly filter with ".css('display') == 'none'"

so here is my version of the script (oh, one more thing: note that instead of using "table.appendChild", i use "insertAfter". this means that the link appears *after* the table instead of inside it).

thanks, peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC) kcylsnavS 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) kcylsnavS 01:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized that it does all the conversion on page load a while ago, but got distracted while I was in the middle of working on it (I was trying to bundle it with a few other things, as well). Thanks for taking a look at it; I know enough Javascript to get by, but I'm not quite as who should say an expert yet. I'll copy this code into my main script. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another question - this time about the script's documentation page. No. 2 and No. 3 seem to be inconsistent. Can you resolve?
 * What? I didn't write a documentation page... hm. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I saw it somewhere, but not on your pages. When I come across it again I'll update it and let you know where it is.
 * No, you were right, it was on my pages. It just wasn't me who wrote it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on Salvio's page so I'm bringing it here
Not an argument, just a comment. You said, on Salvio's page that you didn't think it was my job to enforce civility. Actuyally, I disagree, it's policy and as such, it's everyone's job (just like BLP ). (But like I said on Salvio's page, I'll leave the Arbcom page alone :) KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for a few things. First, the only thing about civility that is policy is the phrase "be civil"; the definition of what civility is or isn't is not policy, and in fact changes from editor to editor. That's why this Arbitration request even exists. So, I think that you (and everyone else, really, admins, non-admins, and myself included) should stay away from unilaterally acting on civility issues in all but the most egregiously serious of cases, which this certainly wasn't. Second, you probably should've talked to Black Kite before hatting his comment. Third, if you try to improvise in a situation where you don't have the tools to respond appropriately, you're gonna have a bad time.  If you don't have the right tools for a situation, your response should probably be to go to someone who does, not to make it up as you go along. My two cents.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)