User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/9

Help Project newsletter : Issue 7
The Help Project Newsletter Issue VII - August 2013

Hello from Hong Kong, and the Wikimania DevCamp! Just a quick bulletin to update everyone on recent goings-on:


 * There was a Wikimedia blog post about our experience at the Open Help Conference.
 * Based on discussions at the Open Help Conference, Seeeko, Ocaasi and the wub have drafted a series of guidelines for writing and improving help pages.
 * There is now also a system in place for assessing help pages by quality and importance. See Help Project/Assessment for more details and the two scales we are using.
 * A project collaboration has been started, the first one is focusing on the above mentioned Assessment. Discussions about this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Help Project.
 * New contributors' help page/questions was merged into Teahouse/Questions
 * A couple of other mergers have been proposed:
 * Questions and Requests
 * How to help and New contributors' help page
 * Help:Introduction to talk pages and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines have both been overhauled and updated to use the new tutorial design.

Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Help Project/Newsletter.

If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that
[redacted previous question]

Oh geez, nevermind, WK, I just read your note above. So sorry to hear that. My thoughts are with you and your family. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My condolences, WK. :( Lady  of  Shalott  00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both; it's much appreciated. For what it's worth, she was very old and frail, so it wasn't a complete shock to us; I got to see her and say goodbye before the end. I guess one is never completely ready, but we were as ready as could be, and everything that could have been done had been.  As things go, it's come on top of my move to a new state and new job, so it'll still be some time before I'm even moderately back in the swing of things. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

, we moved your Teahouse host profile
Hello Writ Keeper! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Shrinking Lonesome Sestina concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Shrinking Lonesome Sestina, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983
I just blocked for 24 hours. I came to the situation from RFPP so I didn't see your note about a final warning on AN3 until afterwards. Sorry if I inadvertently overstepped there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, it wasn't unreasonable to do so, and I doubt I'd take umbrage over anyone overruling me in any case. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hog editor is still adding inappropriate templates to userpages and justifies it with . As an uninvolved admin can you ask him to please stop doing it. The editor also removed a large chunk of the Seralini article for 5 minutes  before restoring it, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/autoCloser.js
Looks like this script is acting up again, its not working for me. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've had a death in the family. I'm not ignoring this, but it might still be a few days before I can get to it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, just was bumping to avoid archiving. Werieth (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that should do it. Sorry for the wait. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Kinda bug fix/feature request. If you have already linked to a section (from Clicking a TOC or otherwise) and then close a different section it always returns you to the first section instead of the section you just closed. If you get a few minutes can you take a stab at that? Werieth (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Iranian in Azerbaijan
Iranian in Azerbaijan is diaspra, OKEY???????????---see Template:Armenian diaspora have article for the many country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight for Eight (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

and see Armenians in Azerbaijan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight for Eight (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

you are angry? go this article for Articles for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight for Eight (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry (and I do know what AfD is). I understand what you're trying to do, but the point is that the subjects of Iranian Azerbaijanis and Iranian in Azerbaijan are pretty much identical, and having duplicate articles like that is a bad idea. Instead, we should redirect one title to the other (it doesn't really matter which one we choose), so that we only have one article to maintain, rather than two.  What makes the subject of these two articles different enough to warrant separate articles? Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 13:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A brand-new user churning out one template after another... I restored that one redirect; it's hard to see the forest for the trees in their other contributions, but it seems there may well be more duplication happening. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm also having issues sifting through the contribs. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Enter another user, and enter me, into the deletion mill: Articles for deletion/Iranian in Republic of Azerbaijan. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you can see this intersection search this way, but that's some significant overlap for two such new accounts. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that; thanks for the link. I've been wondering about that, as well, but I would be surprised if actual sock-puppetry was involved; I would guess it's more like good-faith but misguided tag-teaming. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If so (and that's where I'm leaning toward as well), they are remarkably similar in style. Or, style is remarkably similar in them. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were a cynic, I would correct you by saying that you meant: "style is similarly remarkably absent in them." They are very similar, enough so that an SPI would probably not be baseless, but I would imagine that people who are friends, who might have learned a second language together, would inherit many of the same styles (or lack thereof). Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We certainly need more editors from Iran and Azerbaijan, that's a fact. Maybe they had the same English teacher. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right. On topic, it would appear that the phrasing that's being used is the opposite of what we're used to: we're used to ethnicity/citizenship, as in African American, but look at the Iranian Azerbaijanis article: it appears to be talking about people from Azerbaijani descent who are living in Iran (I guess there are some places called "Azerbaijan" that are actually just parts of Iran). So, if we're judging simply by the titles themselves, then this article might not be a duplicate. BUT, when I read the text of the new article, it still looks like it's talking about Azerbaijanis that are living in Iran. So, I don't know which way is up any more. I would say that probably the best thing to do would be to delete the new article while saving a list of the sources used, and then go through the sources to see if there's any way to write an article about people of Iranian descent (if that phrase even has any meaning; I'm starting to get the sense that it doesn't) who are living in Azerbaijan. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 15:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the more I look at the editing patterns, the more I wonder if they are socks after all. If eight for eight votes in the AfD, I might post an SPI to get more opinions and perhaps a check, since socks double-voting in an AfD would be explicit abuse. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 15:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Why, thanks! Might have been a mistake to post it to the article's talk page; now that it's deleted, the user can't read it. If I had access to my admin account, I'd fish it out of the deleted history and put it on his talk page, but I'm on a public computer right now so I can't. Oh well. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 14:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you get a moment...
...would you take a look at Talk:The Pierre and the follow-up thread Talk:The Pierre and do whatever you think appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really think there's any particular action for me to take. Certainly nothing with my admin hat on over an apparently minor snit. IMO: Neither of you were on your best behaviors there; repeatedly taking shots at your username comes off as pretty snide on Kerry's part. But I think you were wrong to close the discussion like that, even if you were done with it.  For the most part, closes like that, with their appearance of finality (even when it is no more than an appearance), should not be made by any of the prime movers in a dispute.  If you didn't want to engage any more, a more useful thing to do might have been to say something to the effect of: "I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you; if you still want to pursue it, take it to WP:3O and I'll go with whatever the third opinion is."
 * I'd also say, though this is even more just my opinion, that you lost your patience too soon with that conversation. I mean, yes, the potshots at your username are annoying.  But had you rejoined with "that website isn't reliable, you need a source that conforms to WP:RS" (since at first glance, it looks like it isn't, though in passing, neither is IMDB if I recall correctly), that might've led to a more fruitful discussion.
 * The thing of it is that there isn't, as far as I know, an obviously clear-cut answer that either of you are wrong or right. I mean, I don't know much about movie articles, so I can't really say anything "authoritatively" about the content issue itself.  Your constraint that the movie be a filming location seems reasonable, but I can think of counterexamples (I don't think the movie Casablanca was actually shot in Casablanca, but it would be silly not to include that in the Casablanca article), and if that's not the established guideline, then I don't think you really have any grounds to unilaterally close the discussion.  So, I'd say to call the minor incivility a wash and tell Kerry to ask for a 3O if they still want to argue about it to establish a slightly wider and, more importantly neutral, consensus. That's my quick first reading of the situation. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Catharina Koopman
Dear Writ Keeper, Thank you for the suggestion. Please give me more time to find other cites and add more meat. Also, please could you help me. I am always looking to work with other on makeing good articles with great cites. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan Meyer (performer)
Hi Writ Keepe. We actually  had an edit  conflict -  as I  was declining  the CSD you  were delting  the article. I read the whole thing  and did not  find it  to  be overly  promotional. Indeed anything promotional could have eaily  been cleaned up  by  the creator if given support.The subt is clearly  ,notable - unless I  missed something. Can we take another look? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just skimmed it and saw enough promotional material, but the kicker for me was that User:Justlettersandnumbers was the one who nominated it--they had been working on the article for several months at least, and if they felt that, in the end, it wasn't salvageable, I was going to trust their judgement.  Feel free to restore it if you disagree/want to take another look. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry: User talk:Gandolf5 and Talk:Dan Meyer (performer). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your confidence in my judgement. I don't have much confidence in it myself, but I think made a wrong call here (but then I would, wouldn't I?). I agree that the subject is notable, but notability has nothing to do with speedy criterion G12, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic". That page needs to be fundamentally rewritten, and is promotional from start to finish. It shows every sign of having been created and maintained as an autobiography by a near-monothematic SPA. Deletion to make way for a clean start would be the simplest way to deal with all that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What does this mean :  "(but then I would, wouldn't I?) "
 * MRDA. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * COI and autobios are not reasons alone for CSD; if they  were, there would be CSD criteria  for them. Nevertheless, you  have been clearly, neutrally, and politely  made aware of the  the option  of still  taking  the article to  AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As it happens, I'm aware of that. That is why I listed it for deletion under the criterion that does apply, G12. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, having gone through the article again, I stand by my (and more importantly JLAN's) decision that it qualifies for speedy deletion (in passing, you mean--and had used--the G11 "promotional" criterion, not G12 "copyvio" one, just so we don't cross wires). As said, it is promotional from start to finish. While being an autobiography created by an SPA is not part of that criterion, the article meets it on its own merits, and those two facts mean that it will be even more difficult to rewrite than usual.  This is borne out by article's history; it's five years old, yet it looks like it could have been created a few hours ago based on its quality and promotional tone, and that's despite multiple Wikipedians--JLAN very far from least--having tried to improve it.  This isn't an article that just slipped through the cracks for five years; if it were salvageable, the efforts of JLAN et al. would have paid off already. That's why I think deletion would be the best option.
 * All that said, CSD is a lightweight process, and once it's been contested (which is perfectly within Kudpung's or any other editor's rights), AFD is the only recourse. I can't do it right now, so JLAN, feel free to nominate it if you so desire; if you don't, I will probably get around to it a bit later today.  Thank you both for your efforts. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to  be sure we all  understand each  other, I  have absolutely  no  objection  to it  being  sent  to  AfD. I  will  of course recuse from  commenting  there though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@: Well I am considerably relieved to read that; when I read above "... not [...} overly promotional ...", I really began to wonder just what we are doing here. It's also clear that I should not post before my first morning cup of coffee, since I was obviously too bleary to get the right criterion. If you don't mind, I'll leave the deletion nomination to you in this case. But before you do that, and without wishing to stir it unduly or to impugn anybody's good faith: I know of course that anyone except the creator of the article can remove the speedy tag at any time. But that isn't quite what did here; he recreated the article after it was deleted. Should he not have made a request at Requests for undeletion if he disagreed with your decision, as suggested at WP:BIODELETE? Perhaps if he would like to accept that he made a rare error of judgement here, this mess could all go quietly away; or is it in any case too late for that? As an aside, and for what it is worth: inviting an obvious long-term COI editor to fix the errors in his own article is not really in line with our COI policy, and not really very helpful to other editors either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I hadn't  had enough coffee either, but  Writ Keeper  did invite me to  restore it. I  don't  think there is any  real  blemish  to  my  character -  out of over 4,000 deletions I've made I've only  ever restored 30, and they  were all  userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! No-one has said anything about your character (at least, I'm pretty sure I haven't). I believe you made a mistake this morning. I was asking whether, if you chose to acknowledge that that was the case, it would then be possible to undo your recreation of the article and allow WK's action to stand, or if it would at that point anyway be too late. I ask because I don't know, not being, to my constant and endless relief, an admin. Anyway, since we're here, would you be prepared to agree that your actions may in this particular case have been mistaken? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it makes you  happy, yes ;) I  sufppose in  actual  fact  I  could even delete it  again with  a log  engtry 'restored in  error' - I  don't  think  anyone would demand I  hand my  tools in  for being honest  and fessing  up  to  my  first  error in  admin  judgement  after nearly  3 years! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is remarkably good of you, thank you! In my book, honesty is cause for praise not criticism. I'd be really pleased if you were to do as you suggest, or indeed to achieve the same result by whatever means seems best to you and to WK. Thanks to both of you for your time and patience. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Kudpung can delete it himself if he wishes; I'll also redelete it with an appropriate summary, if he feels that's better, or even just send it to AfD if need be; I'm easy. As for the requests for undeletion thing, to be honest I didn't even think about that. My general opinion on speedy deletion, though, is that it shouldn't be that big a deal; assuming no really serious problems like copyvios, attack pages, or BLP problems, I'd think we would be free to restore any speedy-deleted page at the request of an uninvolved third party, admin or not, without any hassles. I'll admit that I don't know if that's policy, but in that sense, I don't see anything wrong with Kudpung's request. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - with full acceptance of the blame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really grateful to you both; now there's just the COI problem at Sword swallower to sort out. I've taken on board WK's sound comments about the nature of the speedy process. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kudpung, and I wouldn't call it blame; taking time to re-think a deletion isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if the outcome didn't change in the end. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Cooper Foundation speedy
Why did you speedy the Chuck Cooper Foundation even though the Speedy was disputed on the talk page (by me) and also I'd suggested it be integrated into the Chuck Cooper page.. Think it was a bit premature as the author was still working on the page! 86.30.135.155 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that you disputed the speedy deletion and requested a merge, but I decided that the concerns were enough to override that. Particularly the promotional nature of the material; as a non-exhaustive example, a great deal of it was written in the first person, which is a dead giveaway for promotional content.  In my (and presumably the tagger's) estimation, virtually none of it was worth saving/merging, therefore deletion. The author also hadn't touched the page in over nine hours by the time I deleted the page, so it's not exactly clear that they were still working on it. I'd have no problem emailing you the text of the article as it was when I deleted it, if you want to use it for merging; if you prefer to use IP addresses for editing and don't already have an account (which is totally fine), it would probably be easiest to create a throwaway account, attach your email address and enable receiving emails in the Preferences page, and let me know what the account name is here, so that I can send you an email without you having to tell me what it is. (That way, I wouldn't know what your email address is, even after sending it.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my partial restore on Mike (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, no problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My user page vandalized...
...by the user I was in dispute with on The Pierre. See Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've issued a final warning; totally unacceptable, of course, but this appears to be a relatively isolated incident, so an outright block is not called for yet, imo. Writ Keeper (WK to move) &#9863;&#9812; 17:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning's fine, I'm not out for blood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * However, please note . Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete a page?
Hey Writ Keeper, while doing some testing, I created User:Ryan Vesey/References.js. Can you delete it? Thanks, Ryan Vesey 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * спасибо (Thank you, in Russian) Ryan Vesey 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/autoCloser.js
I have come across another bug, after closing a section I get a URL like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#%20File:Royal%20Aus%20Regt.JPG Werieth (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump. Werieth (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , which browser are you using? I ask because Writ's script may be currently only compatible with Firefox 21+.  His code uses:
 * Which https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/window.location#Browser_compatibility says that window.location.origin is only supported in Firefox 21. It should perhaps be:


 * Anyways, that is my analysis of it. I'm sure Writ will fix it whenever he shows up from where he has been hiding. Technical 13 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FF19 Werieth (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. Yes, then upgrade to at least version 21. 23 is the newest, but I'm not impressed since they are prematurely deprecating CSS2 elements, but that may appeal to you to not see the effects of  anymore... Technical 13 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with you blocking me in the middle of a discussion especially one that my opponent was bound to lose
I was aiming for ten complete articles. These are the ones I've finished:


 * Ernest Ranglin
 * The Clovers
 * Albert Collins
 * Prince Buster
 * Brazilian Hip Hop

Still no hard feelings.

Writ Keeper is an interesting choice of user name. I always fancied Judge Dredd. lol

Due to your obvious youth as evidenced by your contribution history and excessive use of the word "fuck" and "fucking" in the descriptions. I'm going to take your action in banning me as a sign of age rather than wisdom. lol

Sluffs (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh?  is older than both of us put together I'm guessing... Technical 13 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sluffs was blocked for a month for various inappropriate comments. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Technical13, Writ Keeper is a whippersnapper who is wise beyond his years. He is also (in real life) one of the nicest Wikipedians I've ever met, and I've met a ton of nice ones: in that sense, Wikimania in DC last year was fantastic. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , DC Wikimania was two years ago. Writ Keeper maybe a whippersnapper, but you are one forgetful old fart. Bgwhite (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Low blood sugar, probably. Well, then Writ Keeper isn't so young anymore! Drmies (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Of course, my pleasure. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sülde Tngri
I understand. Sülde is okay. But, it is not tngri. also tengri... In mongolian it is tenger or tingri. but not tngri. because in modern mongolian writing three consonants can not be side by side at the beginning of the sentence... Also it must be Sülde Tengri... Thanks... Buzancar (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent some time on this and responded at Category talk:Tngri, but apparently it wasn't all that important. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for stalkiing my talk page and helping Gary Johnson out. I was swamped with real-world stuff rather suddenly this week, and I've got no time for WP for while. Nice to know you've got my back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, though I'm not sure I helped him enough... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to read his latest message leave him a more in-depth comment later this evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you see this image?
Can you see the image on Battle of Jassin? Ryan Vesey 02:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I get a blank frame with an error icon in the center, though when I click the link, I can see it on the file page, for what it's worth.  Go  Phightins  !  02:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me. I'll go leave a post at VPT, the image appears fine if no size is given.  I'm currently writing an article on the village that was the site of the Battle, it's going to be an interesting one. Ryan Vesey 03:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know :-) - I read the one sentence you started with and was captivated ... I dumped some potential sources on the article talk page.  Go  Phightins  !  03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Danke, what is more interesting is the fact that the village is bisected by the Tanzania-Kenya boundary and that it would otherwise have been very productive. Even more interesting is the fact that every "land boundary" in Africa bisects at least one "culture area".  The boundaries of Burkina Faso cut through 21.  The natives of these areas see/saw those boundaries as ones between the colonizing nations, and considered them to mean nothing to the natives.  As a result, 9/10 of all trade in the Republic of Benin is unofficial trade.  (Sorry for the history lesson on your talk page Writ Keeper, but this is all so interesting and much of it won't make it into the article). Ryan Vesey 03:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, go for it; don't mind me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2: I messed around with it enough to kick the thumbnailing up the behind. Sometimes wikimedia gets stuck like that. Works now. There's also File:Battle of Jassini crop.jpg if you prefer. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you much. Is there any way your new image can actually replace mine on commons?  Yours is much cleaner and I see no reason to have both (unless there's a weird requirement for retouched images needing the originals). Ryan Vesey 03:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I'll sort that out - I did it separately because it looked like yours might stay stuck for a while - I've seen that happen... But no problem - I'll replace yours and request deletion of mine as an unnecessary duplicate. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't been around here in a while, so I'm a bit rough around the edges again. Ryan Vesey 03:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replaced and deletion requested of "crop". Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

so...many...emails...Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you use gmail, "o,y,o,y,o,y,o,y,o,y,o,y,o,y". I set mine to give me a daily digest, not that I receive all that many posts on my talk page anyways. Ryan Vesey 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Serif font
With my limited amount of CSS knowledge, I knew that the font-family should be changed, but wasn't sure what class selector to use. I'm curious, why is body used instead of .body? Ryan Vesey 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the period indicates a CSS class, but we're looking for the html tag type of "body". ".body" would select an HTML element that looks like, whereas "body" would select the tag  . Does that make sense? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thanks. I'm curious, if you were to select "head" would you be able to change the tab font? Ryan Vesey 02:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No... for me, at least, "body" does the tabs as well. An HTML document has a "head", which contains lots of meta stuff (keyword tags, CSS and JavaScript calls, the title of the page, the creator and date, blah blah blah), and a "body", which contains ALL the visible text and other stuff on the page. Setting the font for the head would do nothing. If the tabs haven't changed for you, try calling  (in Monobook) or   or   (in Vector).  Ignatz mice•talk 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...unless you mean the font displayed by the browser in the tab-bar waaaay up above (showing the titles of multiple windows)? I'm pretty certain that's defined by the browser. The head just gives the basic title of the the page, not any font formatting—it's up to the browser to interpret it.  Ignatz mice•talk 02:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the font that was displayed in the browser tab. I ended up testing it and it didn't work, but I'm a bit confused by why it wouldn't.  Why can the text in the tab be changed by changing what appears in, but be completely unaffected by CSS? Ryan Vesey 02:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Bearing in mind that I'm totally talking out of my butt here—) The browser has a default font or set of fonts it uses for things (preferences, the URL at the top of the window, the bookmarks bar, menu items, whatever). That's defined at a low level within the code for the program. The tag just passes a set of UTF-8 (or whatever) characters to the browser, for rendering and display by the browser; that's just how it is. (Maybe WK can answer this better....)  Ignatz mice•talk 03:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know either, but I would have guessed something similar to Ignatzmice: CSS styles don't get applied to the tag because websites aren't really supposed to care about how that looks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN
Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Oakley
There is currently 2 Christopher Oakleys. One, is a historian. The other, is an animator.--Mishae (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that the title Christopher Oakley itself shouldn't be a redirect regardless. If one of the Oakleys were much more important or well-known than the other, then we'd put that one at Christopher Oakley and leave the others where they are; since I don't think that's the case, then we should move the disambiguation page (Christopher Oakley (disambiguation)) to Christopher Oakley instead. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, but how to do it? We still need to keep them separate since they have the same first and last name.--Mishae (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can leave the (historian) and the (animator) pages as they are, and then just move the (disambiguation) page to the tame itself. That way, if anyone types in the name "christopher oakley", they'll be taken to the disambiguation page, where they can choose which Christopher Oakley they mean.  Make sense? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, since it apparently requires admin tools to make the move (I thought it didn't), I went ahead and made the move. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since you are an admin, can you also be kind to explain to me about John Christopher Oakley and weather he is notable or not. Someone told me that as long as an academic have a PhD, he is passed the criterium for notability.--Mishae (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well that's not true. At first glance, I'd say that John Christopher Oakley isn't notable. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. If you want to you can delete it. Another question regarding disambiguation can you check this article: Running Home (book) which I have just written, to see if there is any copyvios. It have at least one review, which maybe doesn't make it notable, but... Your thoughts? Its my first article about a novel or a book of any kind for that matter. On a separate note, today I decided to remove a redirect from a Playboy inmate Colleen Shannon, which was sending to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004 and write it as separate article, considering that a lot have happened (and a lot more to come) since the time she posed for Playboy, that she needs a separate article. Why do I still see other editors? If possible, can you also remove a redirect from the Scarlett Keegan, I found plenty of info on her.--Mishae (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request
Can you make the change suggested at User_talk:Writ_Keeper/Archives/9? due to comparability issues upgrading isn't possible. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Out of curiosity, what compatibility issues? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some tools that I use for nonrelated work break when I upgraded after FF20 rolled out. Ill test upgrading to the newer versions to see of things are fixed. Also the section links it creates seem to be broken, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#%20After%20the%20Lights vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#After_the_Lights (what it should be) Werieth (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Another edit notice problem
Hi Writty, hope you're doing well. There's a bit of an OT discussion in this ANI thread of my change of the header back in June. Not that anybody dislikes my version, as far as I can see (always excepting this guy here), but it's a problem that the edit notice is different. Well, and inferior, IMO. You know how I am with edit notices. Could you change it to match what's seen on the page, please? (AN and ANI both, if possible.) I've put a request in the thread, but nobody's picked up on it so far. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Okay, how's that? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In other news, Connor Behan's a real charmer. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks very much. Yes, a delightful encounter, made my day. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/googleTitle.js
Hi, I really appreciate your googleTitle script – it's the kind of thing I never thought I wanted until I realized how much of a timesaver it was! I've got a minor fix to ensure ampersands and characters of that ilk don't break the script; please change

to

Thanks!  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thank you, Theo! I should really go back and take a look at those old scripts one of these days; I mostly wrote them on the seat of my pants. Of course, that hasn't really changed, just shifted a bit, but what can ya do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Konveyor  Belt 01:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I'm not surprised. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter
Hey Writ Keeper. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at IRC office hours.
 * The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My Halloween Photographs
Hi Writ Keeper, in case you don't see it, I left a text for you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#My_Halloween_Photographs Maodhóg (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Re:
Hi, Writ Keeper. Is it edit warring if one party is protecting a copyright? I'm not questioning your knowledge of the particulars here for I certainly have little to none. I'm looking for a bit of enlightenment as I have seen this NFCC issue raised more frequently of late. Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks  Tide  rolls  19:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because quite simply, the important NFCC are subjective. It is very possible for two reasonable, good-faith editors to disagree with each other about whether a file meets the NFCC or not (for example, whether an image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding": NFCC rule 8, or whether one non-free image "can convey equivalent significant information" compared to multiple: NFCC rule 3a), so in the case of a disagreement, it must be hashed out through discussion, not through revert-warring. While there is an exception in the 3RR definition for NFCC removals, it is tempered by emphasizing that the material be "unquestionably [violating] the non-free content policy (NFCC)" (emphasis original), and going on to state that "what counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis mine). (Also, our non-free content criteria are intentionally stricter than the actual fair-use laws, so even if something is in violation of NFCC, it is not necessarily a breach of copyright, as it may still be justified under fair use.  Not that we should rely on that, but the point is that violations of NFCC are not time-sensitive in the same way that outright copyright violations are.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time; most helpful.  Tide  rolls  20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcia Wallace vandalism

 * Please see this diff -- Medeis is vandalizing the Marcia Wallace page and about to try to start an edit war. Please give him a lengthy block, particularly after Nyttend ruled against him in every respect at the WP:AN. Quis separabit?  22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, RMS! Unfortunately, you have exquisitely bad timing, as I turned in my admin bit not much more than half an hour ago. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really any of my business...
...but I'll ask anyone: Are you just taking an admin break, or are you packing it in? I hope the former. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, most likely the former. I have few illusions about my willpower; the bagel place I go to for lunch knows by now to make me my usual dessert order even if I protest that I won't need it today. :) Seriously, though, this isn't really meant to be much of an "admin strike"; such actions tend to be fruitless, anyway. If you're really curious as to the why, I'm writing some of my thoughts down on a subpage; it's not done by a long shot and is probably already overly long and boring, but if you want to read it, go for it, and if for some reason you feel like commenting, either here or the subpage's talk page (or equivalently, this talk page's subpage!) will work. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I didn't even have to read the subpage to know why you were packing it in. This is ridiculous, and with EC (MF) not able to defend himself owing to the unilateral full protection on his talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you know how it is. It wouldn't be a "Malleus is blocked" thread if there wasn't an admin throwing his toys away in a huff. Not seeing anyone else volunteering, I boldly stepped up to the plate. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * About time, I say. Far too many competent admins about, who needs one more?  Plus, it saves me having to draft a desysop AC case for calling me a prat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tricky
User:SajjadF is editing an article on Sunset. The picures added are reverted by one editor wo has some ownership issues on this article. He is now in an edit war with this editor. I got reverted too. A lot of other editors were in the same positon, reverted. Pictures added to the article are reverted constantly, with the not so convincing argument that they are of poor quality and there is no need for them. I do not agree. The present pictures look all much the same. Reading the previous talk pages, really there is no consesnsus at all, even if this editor says it is. People are getting overrun. I left a message omn the talk page. We would need someone who can look into this. Will you please look att the issue? Eventually this could be something for an RfD. Might be socking involved on earlier stages. User:P and User.A. But I am not sure. Hafspajen (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look later today. If you're looking for admin action, though, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong shop: I'm taking a break from adminning, and I don't have my tools on me.  I can still look at t and give my opinion for what it's worth, at least.  I'd say that including that many images in your talk page thread is really visually distracting, to the point of making it very difficult to read your post, so I would recommend replacing them with links to the images, rather than the images yourself. You can do this by putting a colon (":") in front of the file name:   becomes File:Sunset at Öja, Sweden, April 2009-2.jpg. Diffs of their addition/removal are always helpful, of course, but it looks like you already have a bunch of those.Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

'' Oh, sorry. . '' But I didn't know how to show it better that large amount of pictures removed. We can still do with some second oppinion. Hafspajen (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No I am looking for wisdom, actually . About my talk page... well it is ... meant to be like that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, no, I meant your thread at Talk:Sunset. There are so many images there that it's kinda crowding out the text. You're free to do whatever you want with your user talk page, of course. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey WK, do you know what happened to (my) mass rollback? Thanks, you digital sleuth you, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, looks like a bug in the script, or more accurately, something about Mediawiki changed that made that script no longer work. I'll look into fixing it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks WK. You're the best in the biz. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Drmies Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Okay, I think I'm done. In your vector.js page, change   to   and see if that works. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What an odd edit screen--is that what whatchamacallit looks like these days? The user-friendly way of editing? HappyEdit? OK, done--I'm going to try it on your contributions. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks WK. You're grrrreat. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. That screen wasn't the VisualEditor; it's a new screen specifically for editing code, and it automatically happens on pages that end in .js or .css. It's pretty handy; it lets you use the Tab key to create uniform indents, which is useful for formatting code. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Hey, lunch is on me. Carnitas! Drmies (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to fly out to the West Coast, go for it. Now that you say it, though, I think I will have carnitas for lunch. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops--I forgot I was supposed to help you move... Out west, huh? Nice! Drmies (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't live out west, I just work here. I'm a free spirit; I'm not one to put down roots. Like a hobo... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried it, but it didn't work. I get the pull-down thingy, but clicking it doesn't roll anything back but my patience. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. It was working in Monobook, but Monobook must be weird about things. I've fixed it now; try bypassing your cache and it should work now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks WK--I'll let you know how it goes. My carnitas were delicious; I hope yours were too. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Closure
Hi, I understand your closing point, but with respect I also think the closure on discussion of User:Coffee's edits was premature - I cannot see any attempt to answer several of the questions the User was asked. I have added a note at the bottom of WP:AN in a new section specific to notification of sourced stub creators and implementation of own prods. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you feel there are still issues to discuss, go ahead and discuss them; I just think it would be best to do so in a new thread, with a deliberately broader scope defined from the outset. The problem with AN discussions like that is that when their scope starts expanding, you start to have all kinds of parallel conversations going on, and it becomes very difficult to keep tabs on all of them. Given that the immediate issue seemed to have been at least somewhat resolved, I figured it was best to just stop it there.  (Well, it was mostly to deprive Coffee and PBP of a venue to start sniping at each other, though it didn't actually stop them, but still.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I imagine it is extremely unlikely that Coffee will delete any more stubs by this particular creator. So going forward the question for serial article creators relates to the encouragement or discouragemnt of self-implementation of sourced article deletion. I had been working on the assumption that anything with Google Book citation notability would not normally be summarily blanked (and it hasn't happened over the last 1000 stubs) without giving creators a chance to improve, or at least a time window, or at least a second user being involved. Hence I think the question worth asking. Thanks for your reply above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cost per 1000 Eyeovers
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cost per 1000 Eyeovers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No indication the term was invented by the author or someone known to him/her. Thank you. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you say so. I'm not at all convinced, seeing as how the term is completely unknown to anyone but the person who made it up. I don't think the "by the author of the article" is particularly the point of that criterion. Nevertheless, I know we interpret them narrowly.  It just seems like a waste of seven days to delete something that even the author admits isn't notable (per the article's talk page), but c'est la vie. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 08:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

YAYYY!!!
You're back as an admin!!! Good to have you with the buttons again. Sports guy 17 :)  (click to talk • contributions) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, figured it was about time. Thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now, as an active, uninvolved admin, please block all ArbCom candidates except me, so they are ineligible. Well, OK, and maybe 28bytes, he doesn't scare me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Undoing an edit
Can you help me understand your comment here. When I tried to undo the edit in question I got an error from the system that the edit could not be undone, and must be fixed manually. It is my, seemingly incorrect, understanding that if I re-added the comment that was originally posted by the IP user, that it would be the same as me commenting on the thread, which I did not want to do. Can you help me understand how I could have fixed this so that I don't cause future admins additional work should I see this situation again? —    Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, you couldn't undo the edit using the "undo" button because the page had been edited since then; that's usual. All I did was copy the IP's edit and paste it into the page where it had been by hand. I noted that it wasn't my comment with my edit summary (and by keeping the IP's signature, instead of signing it myself), but if you want to avoid confusion, what I've done in the past is put a note at the end of the post in small font that explains things, something like IP edit restored by Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC), which should let people know what's going on.  The edit itself will always be credited to your account, that's true, but if you let people know what's going on via edit summary or note, it's not a big deal.  Does that make sense? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for your help. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

i suggest
you remove sergecross73's comment as well. its uncivil and only promoting friction.Lucia Black (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just posted to your talk page as well. Briefly, though: I'd rather not change edits that were made before the close, just to maintain the record of what went down (in particular, GiantSnowman and Sergecross's posts were the major reasons that I closed it). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * then they should be removed. I'm sick of the uncivility that they (specifically sergecross73) get away with.Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand why you say that, but I don't agree in this case; I think that it's more important to preserve the conversation as it was when it was closed. Admittedly, part of that is because, were those comments removed, then my close wouldn't make sense to someone unfamiliar with the history of the conversation, but part is also that, were this to come up in the future, having the conversation intact could be helpful as a reference. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it would be great if more people gave more warnings for incivility. at the moment, Sergecross doesn't think he's being uncivil, and it stresses me out, everytime this editor chime's in on a personal opinion about me when i'm not even a subject.Lucia Black (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, there is also a fine line between incivility and criticism here: not everything that one might take offense at can be considered incivility. In this case, I wouldn't consider Sergecross's post to be uncivil. Blunt, sure; critical, no doubt; but not uncivil.  We have to be careful that, while trying to enforce civility, we don't stifle all criticism, for (civil) criticism is compatible with, and at times necessary for, collaboration.  We can't truly be collaborative if we aren't allowed to express our disagreement or even disapproval of others' actions or opinions.  I would judge that Sergecross's comment falls on the right side of the attack/criticism divide, though I do understand why you would take offense to it.  It's a judgement call, and different people will have different standards of what's uncivil and what isn't, which is why enforcement and warnings and the like about civility are always so touchy and difficult. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "incivil". It was getting a bit off-topic, sure, but, as you stated in your close, the issue at hand, with Lukeno, was largely figured out, so it wasn't disrupting that discussion, and it wasn't out of the blue, it had been in response to what GiantSnowman had been getting at. I'm not just making stuff up, I'm pretty sure Lucia was literally topic banned due to too many ANI reports that were bogus, many of which were in regards to civility.
 * Anyway, I apologize, Writ Keeper, you probably don't really care. I'm sorry to get you embroiled in Lucia and I's arguments. Sergecross73   msg me   18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ANd you've literally brought it up in uncalled for situations, where you make me the subject, not the original topic. its the truth. you don't get what you're doing, or maybe you do and you find it justifiable, but it's not. i would prefer if we were interaction banned. it doesn't make it acceptable every time and all you want to do is belittle me.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly Writ. what makes criticism acceptable and what makes it un-called for? What Sergecross was doing wasn't criticizing, it was belittling another person for past actions he deems inadequate. it wasn't on topic, and it wasn't called for. if he has a problem with something, he can definitely tell it straight to me, rather than trying to spread that i'm inadequacy to other editors. and this is a constant pattern not just in ANI.

The comment was directed in the past, and you said it yourself the drama came from those two editors. It may look like an edge-case on your book, but this has been going on for a long time. I rather he avoid making me into a topic of discussion. He's doing it even now. and it seems ridiculous and incivilLucia Black (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Aaah, I missed being an admin. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry about this. We're hashing this out on my talk page, so you don't especially need to keep being part of this if you don't want. If she's unhappy with talking with me, I welcome her to take me to ANI. Sergecross73   msg me   19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's fine. I knew what I was getting into. I had just forgotten that nothing lights up your inbox quite like trying to mediate a Wikipedia dispute (especially a civility one). ;) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

just to clarify Writ:

"WHat can be considered a personal attack
 * Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR."

i believe the principle of this applies here.Lucia Black (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're coming from, but I wouldn't take that tack here; it was a context thing, but I don't think it was a context thing in the same way that that paragraph means. (Trivially: this certainly was a conflict resolution page, but that's not really what I'm getting at.) I'm having unsurprising trouble articulating what I mean, so I'll leave it be, at least for now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry Writ, it doesn't matter whether anyone makes a claim. the fact is he chose to belittle me (And he has not once denied it.) the context wasn't "me" as you said, it was off-topic. we can try to wikilawyer what WP:NPA means, but i think its pretty clear on the principle that we shouldn't make editors a subject in places that aren't appropriate.Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with that principle; that's why I hatted the thread. But my point is that, in my mind at least, violating that principle doesn't necessarily make a post uncivil, and given how subjective and emotionally charged disputes about incivility can get, it's not a good idea to call things uncivil that aren't. And, going back to the original point, since this isn't as who should say uncivil, there's no real need to blank the comment from the ANI thread. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * violating that principle makes it a personal attack therefore it is a sign of incivility. And again, there's a pattern of this. i think its pretty clear cut in this situation regardless. its only subjective if another editor chooses to see it that way. if we go in the principle of WP:NPA, its as clear as day that it is incivility. I understand you only see this as an isolated event, and Sergecross is probably thinking that i'm taking this out of context. but do believe this is a pattern. the only reason why i wont bring it up past events is because i created the space to save such history after the pattern. so it's not like i want to rehash the past. but this just happened, and i'm warning that it will be recorded. but i digress. i'll end the subject by saying that i go in accordance to WP:NPA identifies as a personal attack/incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
...For the quick revert. It's much appreciated! Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, no problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Or?


If this is not an vandalism only account, I'll eat my hat, right now. EX_Warrington (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right, but since it stopped editing quite a while ago, not much sense in doing anything about it. Just leave it be, I say. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I will. And can you possibly tell me why this happened? I had a lot of bad exprtience with this person. Makes me uneasy. Usually I just don't edit the same things, or look first if this is one of his/hers articles, this time I was not carefull. But I think that a lot of people has issues with this. Just tying to edit his page he/she starts there trying to scare people off, there, it is not the nice flirtation lab, like Mies has but worse, like this: you frothy guts-griping varlet! Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you warped fen-sucked harpy? Am I a warped fen-sucked harpy who said nasty things just because I want to leave  message?  EX_Warrington (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC).


 * How is a few hours "quite a while ago"? :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, I don't know, I'm making this up as I go. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , apparently you don't know how view time. There are only three possibilities: hasn't happened yet, now, and quite a while ago.  This was clearly the last... Technical 13 (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry I kinda dropped the ball on this one. That thing at the top of Montanabw's talk page is actually a joke; the language it uses is randomly-generated and intentionally archaic; it's supposed to be a funny thing.  The idea is that it's a funny contrast between the Shakespeare-esque language (which usually takes a connotation of primness, properness, and formality), and the over-the top "insults" that the words actually mean.  It's not something to be taken seriously; the randomness and obsolescence of the words is usually enough nuance for the user to get that it's a joke. I see how, if English wasn't one's first language, that could be easily mistaken.  I'll mention it to her. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? My idea was that she tried to bite me. If it is a joke, well, it is slightly hard to get, but I will take your word on that. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a joke, I promise. :) Like I said, though, I see how easily it could be misinterpreted. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but than it might be better to avoid it, in my oppinion. For all my classical education, Harpy is nothing nice. A term is often used metaphorically to refer to a nasty or annoying woman, or worse. Even in the Shakespeare-esque language. (this one is from the Wikipedia:) In Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick spots the sharp-tongued Beatrice approaching and exclaims to the Prince, Don Pedro, that he would do an assortment of arduous tasks for him "rather than hold three words conference with this harpy!" Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, "harpy" is an unfortunate example, as it's still used a bit today. But take "varlet": nobody actually calls anyone a "varlet" any more, so a modern English speaker wouldn't automatically take offense to it, even though in Shakespearean terms, it's not a nice thing.  Because it's such an old word, people wouldn't assume that it's an actual insult right away.  But I'll admit that it might be better to avoid it; I suggested as much to Montana on her talk page, though she should feel free to disregard it if she likes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maybe I should start using Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo or Nam, displosa sonat quantum vesica, pepedi diffissa nate ficus... Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? Shakespeare was "prim, proper, and formal"? I'm just a lowly engineer, and my last humanities class was... (runs out of fingers) a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that ain't even close.  Black rams tupping white ewes, and all that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was prim and proper; only that the language makes people think it was. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, sorry (still slightly confused, but less so than I was}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, don't judge me, okay? I had a rough re-introduction to the joys of adminning this morning (see below). The point is that it's so old and over-the-top that nobody's supposed to take it seriously. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I always take William Shakespeare seriously! Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To hat or not to hat. Yeah, adminning isn't always fun, that's why I'm trying to get on board the Arbcom gravy train. I hear they have fun all the time, no downside!  You should have signed up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is only a joke Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Writ, I think you've just been punk'd by Hafspajen. (See my talk). Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* Could be, I dunno. I'm almost past caring about Wikipedia for the day. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chin up, WK. Have a beer.  I'm about to. (I'm not Drmies, so you won't be impressed by the brand.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've closed that godforsaken section on your talk page, allowing me to delete unposted the reply I'd half-typed up for it, I might be able to. People, man. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God. Tell me you aren't letting that individual get under your skin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * maybe a little Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9:::No,non, no, I was not 812; 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no and no, I wans't punking Writ Keeper, I would't dream of anything like that. It is not possible at all, and I have to say that somebody has a weird sense of "humor", if trying to look at it that way. That comment for Bishy was just a joke, and it was meant for Bishy, and no one  else but Bishy. There is no point in putting in any other way. That was an old, really old joke between me and Bish. From the good old time, when I had an other name, Writ Keeper knows. And naturally I never met Bishy, and it is no such thing  as some personal grunge about this, it was and it only a joke.


 * I said thanks to Montana, and Bishy poped up, immediately after that, and than it seemed like Montana asked me, who are you talking to, so I answered, you. (and jokingly that I don't talk to Bishy because she refused me to marry me, but that is just a joke, as I said, a long way back). : One can see the edits in which timeline they were coming to the page in the history page. That is not the real order of the edits, what you can see there. Sorry  but there wasn't any punking involved, especially not against  Writ Keeper.  Writ Keeper, you just start from your own edit and go om to push the next edit, next edit and next edit and you will notice  what happened.  Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I picked up on it. :) I was just tired yesterday; I never really thought you were punking me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wonder what humor is nowadays. Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, given that this whole thing started over my use of Darwinbish's insult spout, this entire thread now makes perfect sense to me! So, I think smiles, hugs and beers are in order all around. No harm, no foul.   Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm not a beer person. I roll with sazeracs. (But yes!) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good then. Cheers! Hafspajen (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sportsfan
I'm not about to do anything. This isn't because I think it should stay, but because I have no clue what the right action is. When I unblocked him, I decided to remove the entry, but then I wondered if it should stay because the entry remains in his block log — I've wanted it to be properly removed, ever since I unblocked him. I would prefer that someone familiar with arbitration procedures deal with it, whether by removing it entirely or striking it or whatever else. If they need some sort of agreement from me before modifying the entry, this comment should suffice, because I'm happy to see it removed. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I'll wait until I've heard from Rschen, and then I'll put a strikethrough in it with an explanatory note. I'm not very familiar eith arbitration matters either, but I'll just wing it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and the help! Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Installing User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js on my own script file
Hey Writ Keeper, just wondering, how do I install User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js correctly on my own script file? Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the same as any other user script: just put its location into an importScript statement on your preferred skin.js page (in your case, it looks like User:Epicgenius/monobook.js, assuming you use the monobook skin) like so:
 * It should go without saying, but please be very, very careful with how you use this script, should you install it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going on..?
You deleted both my Sam Pepper (artist) page, and the talk page, which was asking for help and clarification as to why the page was deleted.. How am I supposed to get help with it if you delete the talk page as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpshu (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, deletion of the talk page was just standard procedure; we don't keep talk pages of deleted pages around. An  example of a better place to ask questions like those would be the Teahouse, which is a place set up for new users to ask any questions they have. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just trying to sort this out.. Kpshu (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, no worries. I know it's frustrating to have your page deleted, and we're not always very good at explaining what was wrong with it. I'll write up an explanation on your Teahouse question (others will be able to give their answers, as well). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

David Padilla (disc jockey)
Hi Writ Keeper, notwithstanding your correct observation, I've requested the page be protected from its creator. Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but personally, I still don't think protection is necessary. To be honest, I'd instead consider giving Vonhempton a short (a few hours, probably) block, if they continue adding the template to the article; it would incur less collateral damage. Either way, though, I'd rather wait to see if they continue (though I know they've been doing it a while, I don't really like to use the tools unless it's still happening after I started watching, if that makes sense). Principle of cautious adminning, I suppose. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that--there's no rule that says my exasperation must be placated. Every time, anyway. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just noticed that your request is asking for semi-protection: Vonhempton is an autoconfirmed account, so semi-protection won't really change anything, as they can edit through semi-protection. It would need to be full-protection instead. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh. I think I'll withdraw the request for the time being. Thank you. JNW (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your unilateral ANI thread closure...
...was a pretty good call, actually. :) Hope you're prepared for the onslaught of notifications! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I look forward to it, and I'm sure my desysop is already in the mail. Oh well, someone had to do it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your assessment that ANI is simply being unable to handle conflicts related to Eric Corbett was totally correct. Neither will an RFC/U solve anything as it is based on the same kind of consensus-oriented process that ANI is. And there is no consensus in the community regarding Corbett. That leaves only ArbCom which doesn’t have this problem of having to obtain some kind of “consensus” as they simply make decision based on  vote counts and simple majority. It’s almost two years since they last ruled on it, so enough time (and incidents) have passed to open a new case. You closing pretty much handed the case (when next incident occurs) over to ArbCom, imo. Iselilja (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the closure was perfect. I  don't  get  involved n  the Eric Corbett issues (I most  certainly  could, but  I  have no  desire to  fuel  the drama), but  if I  did, I  would have closed it  in  almost  exactly  the same way, and it  was more or less   what  I  was expecting  to  happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

AN/I closure
Damnit man, I can't type that fast. So here's what I was going to say, for the peanut gallery. The edit summary would have been, "My personal rainbows and cotton candy viewpoint".


 * Oppose block. This makes me sick at heart. I was thrilled when Khazar returned; I think his re-retirement is a sad, sad loss. But unfortunately he didn't speak up when he first saw Eric say something that shocked him; instead he eventually lashed out with a nasty insinuation - a clear personal attack, in fact, couched though it was as "the most likely explanation" rather than as certainty: . Now we've lost him again and Eric is hauled up on charges of incivility when Eric is right - he was the one insulted out of the blue. I'd hate for us to lose Eric too. It won't protect the encyclopedia in any way; that, too, will diminish it. Unfortunately, as I've said before, we have a clash of cultures here. Using "naughty words" is not inherently childish; it can be seen as honest and forthright (though I too wish Eric would stop with the use of cunt, and I do note that was the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to this AN/I). Calling someone a bully is not inherently childish either. I don't have a solution that has a hope of acceptance, but I must also emphatically reject the suggestion that Eric'stalk-page edits be restricted: in addition to copy-editing he's one of our most productive collaborative editors, and his talk page is heavily used for requesting assistance and for workshopping. What I'd like is more emphasis on respect, including respect for different styles of discourse (I don't think we should ever be calling fellow editors immature or sadistic, let alone "vile", without damned good reason; that's my idea of bedrock civility) and including going to someone's talk page or e-mailing them when you first have an issue, not saving it up and then blasting them with unexplained vitriol, and not tarring everyone with the brush of being either "enablers" or "cunts" if they see an issue such as this differently. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Yngvadottir, but you know what they say: let one in, and you have to let 'em all in, and there are many people who are not going to word their opinions quite as reasonably as you worded yours. Like I said, if we're being honest with ourselves, I think we all know that the thread will go nowhere; it never does.  So why let people throw themselves (and more importantly, each other) against the stone wall of futility? The close is actually going down much better than I expected: only Carrite has objected so far, and his objection is totally reasonable and proper (I just don't think it would be in anyone's best interest to comply with it). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw one person had snuck in after the close, but I haven't looked since - I've been busy typing slowly elsewhere '-) I'm not disagreeing, but rather than trashcan it, I thought I'd stick it where interested people can read it anyway. Sorry to misuse your talk page and your reading time, and thanks for the compliment. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course; no misuse at all. Feel free to post what you like. Yeah, someone did sneak in there, but my close was out-of-procedure enough that trying to enforce it by deleting post-close comments wouldn't have gone over well. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought your closure was almost perfect, and the only reason for the "almost" is you should have done it sooner. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the "conversation" continues, with more unfounded accusations, misunderstood policy, partisanship (and allegations thereof), and other assorted nastiness. And we're still not a smidgen closer to any kind of resolution. It almost makes me wish someone had stepped in earlier and tried to just save everyone the trouble, and maybe suggest that one editor in particular, who has a less-than-perfect grasp of history and policy, stay away from it. OH WAIT Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Thanks for the warm welcome and the recommendation to Teahouse! TelosCricket (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)