This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Writ Keeper! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Abhishek191288 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
— Abhishek Talk 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this edit! I was just looking for that revision, but couldn't find it due to the preceding revisions within. Really appreciate your help. MegastarLV ( talk) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thanks for your helpful, insightful and reasoned contributions to Talk:Chesapeake Energy. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Writ Keeper! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Writ Keeper. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Teabulla, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. A7 is not for products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thankyou for making me smile on my talk page :-) The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.
Here's what we're up to lately:
Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If your edit notice is accurate, you already have the Blackbeard page watchlisted. I just wanted to thank you for your time, and to let you know that I've responded there. Have a good one. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper,
Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Writ Keeper, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Sailendra.dalai90, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've moved it to the correct userspace. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Did I do that? Greg Heffley 23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Tokyogirl79 (
talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Just wanted to drop a note here and explain in more detail. The notices about the auction don't generally show notability about the company, although it does back up the auction claims and would only be considered a non-notable event or routine article. All you really need is just one link to a reliable source that talks about the company itself rather than it almost closing and it should be ready to be posted. As far as the company website goes, we can't count that as a reliable source because it's released by the company. Hope this helps! Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
Hi Writ Keeper,
We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!
We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.
Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping me improve the article I created and for clarifying wikipedia terminology! Bizutage ( talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
On the 7 World Trade Center's talk page right after your comment I left a new comment to lay out my objection more plainly.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you still willing to offer your good offices on this? I think we've reached an impasse - I think my version is dandy, Carlaude thinks exactly the same, but different. It's settling into a revert war. We need to break the cycle. Where do we go next?
The squabble is essentially over two competing paragraphs, which can both be seen here. PiCo ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your thoughtful input on the Hedge fund article. Your assistance finding a compromise was greatly appreciated. — Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, do you have a minute to look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist) and tell me if I'm out in left field? Thanks-- UnQuébécois ( talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Writ - did see your last note on Steven's page. Thought it best not to use his talk page for continuing. But you've been kind and patient in your remarks, so I thought I'd add a little to why the matter of rules and their misapplication has disturbed me so. The poem thing was only confirmation of the problems I've seen. The real substance was a lengthy, complex BLP discussion in which I have had to stand by and watch a man's personal and professional reputation maligned and viciously attacked with the intent to cause harm (the WP article has actually caused real harm to him). I did what I could, but I was one against the many. And the many (though it is private information and I will not source it) are an organized group of editors who began their assault on the subject and continue to wage it with the sole purpose of doing harm to the subject. They employ WP rules to the advantage of doing that, not out of any intent to be accurate. They impose a tyranny of consensus, and simply bully anyone else aside. If you think I'm hyping this, consider they are among the same groups that squashed the Smithsonian's Cross-roads exhibit a few years back. If you think about it, any well-organized fringe group can do this, using literal interpretations of rules, consensus majorities and a bit of manipulation. In this case the second-sources they boast of being gold (media articles in the NYT, W.Post, et al.) actually originated with one of the editors of the BLP - and he bragged about this in the original version I attempted to revise. Anyway, through the weeks of trying to end this malicious attack, person continued to be harmed (even had one of his books pulled from publication by a major company that wanted to avoid the controversy started by WP), and continues to this day to suffer these consequences. There was nothing I could do to prevent this, under Wiki's rules. Even the BLP rules about living persons say that it is the challenger who must prove the case. Though I did prove it, it was ignored. More to the point is the fact that the rule, if you think about it, insists that the harm done continue until the proof against doing it is certain and has consensus. Any real world appraisal would say one cease immediately the potential of doing harm until the case for doing it is proven. Not the other way around. But that is not the case at Wiki. I've been charged, in the process of trying to prevent the damage, with vandalism, edit warring, NLTs, and everything else you can think of. Even my attempt to get the matter mediated was shot down with caustic remarks, and the rf for mediation was quickly closed without action. It goes on. But it opened my eyes to how the very things that are meant to keep Wiki honest and organized, can be perverted and twisted to serve personal agenda's. The irony is, that one can't even take something like I experienced to RFC or the village pump. in the former, their is no subject category for even talking about WP policies and their weaknesses; in the latter one would be accused of "shopping" - I was, by one of the parties in the dispute. So, this isn't just a matter of 'sour grapes' or 'don't let this experience discourage you'. There are fundamental flaws in how WP works. And there are people who have no compunction about using those flaws to their own advantage. Anyone who tries to stand up to what is the correct and decent thing, no matter what the rules say, doesn't stand a chance; doesn't even have a slingshot to work with. I do much thank you for your calming notes, though. I do know there are some here who are conscientiously trying to contribute, and wish them all the best. Red Slider (note: I put the four tildes here, but it doesn't seem to translate into my user name) 71.193.56.126 ( talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
All of this intense examination is to say, no matter what people have tried to do in the past, there are very good solutions and they haven't tried hard enough. Not that the few solutions I've suggested above are the best or near complete; but that they can be devised, and do much better at protecting BLP subjects from unwarranted attack than what we have. WP can be a good thing, at least a much better thing than it is, I've no doubt. But that it hasn't tried hard enough is equally obvious. It has people running loose and destroying its initial reputation and value. I think it time WP stopped defending the way it works and look at what is actually happening and put an end to it - a better end than its present system suggests is possible. I won't even guess how/if that is to be done. Given the procedural problems it has in just dealing with instances of abuse, I'd wager getting changes to prevent the abuse in the first place is a monumental undertaking. One I don't really have the time or the skill-set to do. I'll close with a Santayana quote that I once amended to read, "Those who haven't learned history are bound to repeat it; but, those who only know history are equally doomed to repeat it." Thanks for your indulgence, Writ Keeper. I hope I haven't unduly imposed on your time and attention. Much obliged.
I was deep into studying and researching Talk:Fine_print#Edit_war_over_.22Fine_print_is_illegal_in_some_cases..22 with a view to giving a 3O when you, you, you ... sniped it from me. I hope it freaking breaks your keyboard, rassinfrassing dadgnabin upstart <mutter, mutter, mutter>. (In all seriousness, thank you very, very much for all the work you're doing at 3O. Keep it up!) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hi Writ! Do you think you could expand your already considerable kindness just a bit more and have another look at that Estelle talk? The other editor wants to keep me engaged in some personal debate over terminology which I now find superfluous. Looks to he like h/s won't give up unless we use the exact term h/s wants. Could you please ask h if h/s is unhappy with the current text (which I think is excellent now) and what h/s would like to see improved if so? The talk needs to concern itself with that now, and I've had it. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, once again. I was wondering if I could get your advice on the discussion going on over with the Mark Howe article? I am not trying to say that what Centpacrr ( talk · contribs) is stating is true or not, but not verifiable per Wikipedia standards. I think that he is taking this a little to personally, and not following WP:V or WP:NOR guidelines. I have tried to find verifiable sources to support his version, but have seemed to fail. Thanks. -- UnQuébécois ( talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
ATTN: Writ Keeper:
The text of your complaint smacks of being nothing more than a boilerplate. I do not know what a "verbal discourse" is and I do not actually care. I spent many hours correcting hundreds of extremely serious actual factual errors. And, I presented references where anyone who would bother could easily verify the voracity of my changes, corrections, deletions, definitions, etc. Then you blithely disregarded, dismissed, and deleted my effort in its entirety, evidently, based upon the recommendation of a computer algorithm.
As it stands, this page contains many factual errors including those that perpetrate dangerous ignorance. Obviously, it was written by a person or persons with such a superficial understanding of the subject that they simply made it up as they went along, adding error after error. I did essentially nothing other than to correct those errors, properly define words and terms, add additional useful information, etc.
Based upon this experience, it would be very easy for me to believe that Wikipedia does not care about the accuracy of the information it presents.
As that text now exists, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it must be deleted in its entirety because it presents flatly false and misleading information of many types — not one significant paragraph or photograph caption is immune from these problems and at least one entire significant discussion is entirely bogus. Therefore, anyone reading that page and trusting any information contained therein will gain nothing but erroneous beliefs. Therefore, as a recognized authority on this subject, I demand that this discussion be deleted in its entirety.
And, if this is how this organization treats contributors, please be so kind as to remove my user name, I have better things to do and better places to find factual information. (Based upon this one subject, which I know very deeply, I must assume that any subject that I do not know contains equally false and erroneous information, so why would I ever want to refer to Wikipedia for information of any kind — only a fool would assume that information on any other subject was accurate or waste more time trying to improve something after being treated so dismissively.)
Sincerely Yours, Fundamental Motivation ( talk) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Writ Keeper: I added various reference sources where you could easily verify the voracity of my factual corrections. Toward providing my bona fides, what else can I do? If some private way exists to provide my pertinent resume information to you and, if that would make any difference, I am happy to do so. Y seem to have restored the discussion of firearms terminology claiming that it is misleading, which is utter and complete nonsense that stems from the writer or writers involved being ignorant of the correct terminology; my discussion contained factually accurate information. As that page now stands it is so chocked full of potentially dangerous and misleading information (refer to the actual causes of Brandon Lee's death — ultimately that the people involved did not know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge) I am quite serious about either correcting or entirely deleting the discussion. I have just done so. I want to apologise for anything untoward I have suggested here or otherwise, I am very confused by all of this. Fundamental Motivation ( talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, We have a dispute here . You were involved in similar dispute between us here. Since you are familiar with the topic, I invite you help resolve this dispute. Thanks. Ramcrk ( talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
(redacted; moved to user's talk page) ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Writ! Glad to see you lending a hand. As requested on the "Your hosts" page, it'd be wonderful to have people who are answering questions (hosts) participate in all areas that the hosts are asked to participate in per that host page. Two things I'd LOVE help with specifically: inviting people and when you are finished answering a question on the Teahouse page, it'd be awesome if you'd leave a Teahouse Talkback on the editors page. These are all necessities during (and honestly, beyond) the pilot phase of this project, and is very important in us tracking metrics to judge the projects successes, or failures. If this is going to be an issue, feel free to let me know! Thanks again for participating, you're doing an awesome job :) Sarah ( talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Merci de votre mot de gentillesse. Nous sommes tous humains vous et moi et tous les autres -- Vieux supporteur de hockey féminin ( talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Message sent with Global message delivery.
Hi WK! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:
I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Writ Keeper, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah ( talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Thanks for helping move guests at the Teahouse. I tended to leave one guest at the bottom, maybe so new guests don't feel that something went wrong when their profile didn't look like the others, or maybe so they didn't feel lonely! Anyway, that was my process, do with it what you will :) heather walls ( talk) 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For those fine userscripts of yours. Way to improve the host experience on WP:Teahouse! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey Writ! Thanks again for all the great work you've put into the Teahouse scripts. I do have one question. With the invite template script, I'm not a big fan of having my signature and the extra verbiage ("I and the other hosts...) outside of the template. Is there a way I can modify that? Or should I just keep using my original cut and paste method? Thanks! Sarah ( talk) 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The signature is IN the template. I hope this helps! Thanks again. Sarah ( talk) 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
................................other advisors postings............................
Thank you everyone for your advice and help. I have been struggling with using Internet Explorer 8 up to now. Also, been unable to get much speed out the editing/show preview/show changes/save page sequence – and that's putting it mildly..! Tonight, I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox. Wow! My aged PC is "on fire" – it's lightening. Just tried your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} , AND IT WORKED. Kindest regards to you all, Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Writ, great that someone can write scripts. Query on this one, it doesn't appear to work on user pages that I create i.e. where I'm the first person to talk to that user. Perhaps because it's tied to the move menu and that doesn't work on new pages because there is nothing to move? NtheP ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Although you marked this user talk page as a page created by your script for a non-existent user, it seems that your script has actually created an account, because User talk:NaN does not show the "This account is not registered" message. There is something odd about it, though, because clicking "User rights" at the bottom of Special:Contributions/NaN produces this, with no date/time of account creation, though those displays normally look like this. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
$.post(getSubmitURL(), {wpTextbox1 : invitationBody, wpSection : "new", wpEditToken : mw.user.tokens.get('editToken'), wpStarttime : timestamp, wpEdittime : timestamp, wpSummary : invitationSectionTitle}, function(){ alert("Invitation posted!"); });where the getSubmitURL() function had a bug in it that returned the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:NaN?action=submit§ion=newThe bug involved an extra + sign when formatting the user name, which caused it to return "NaN" (i.e. not a number) rather than the user name. I'm not sure how this would've had anything to do with creating an account...can you tell, or point me to someone who knows more about this than I do? I guess this is what happens when you play with fire... :( Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for the Answer! Monareal ( talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
You're welcome! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I need a good symbols on my signature and I want my whole signature to be bold.-- 20thtryer ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User talk:Writ Keeper|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ Keeper|&#x 2654;]]and it will look like this in the end: Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔. If I wanted to make all that text bold, I would just surround the text with the three single quotes like this:
'''[[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User talk:Writ Keeper|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ Keeper|&#x 2654;]]'''and it would come out looking like this: Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ If I were to make a signature for you, with the bold text and the same symbols, I would write something like:
'''[[User:20thtryer|20th Tryer]] [[User talk:20thtryer|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/20thtryer|&#x 2654;]]'''and it would come out looking like this: 20th Tryer ⚇ ♔. Note that, in all of the examples above, you need to take out the space between the x and the 2 for the symbols to show up.
I added some useful refs to the talk page; of note, there is an article on another wiki which almost seems to be the basis of this one, and contains exactly the sort of coverage I wanted the wikipedia article to have. However, its sources are paper books, so I cannot verify the citations at all and don't feel comfortable just copying the citations over. Besides looking up this coverage, I don't feel I really have the resources or expertise to actually rewrite the article.
I'm not sure what authority the R3O actually holds, so I haven't removed the section from the main article again. I guess I'm asking if you could do it based on the R3O? If not, well, at least I provided some references for someone with the expertise and resources to spritz up the article. 70.34.147.3 ( talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.36 ( talk) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
For cleaning my talk page. I'd just finished giving the IP their 4th warning and was just waiting for the next one to send it to AIV. That one did it! Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 16:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you very much for your help! I will use the Teahouse now! Thank you! Wilfbibby ( talk) 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I submitted the article in "Road Safety", but was told to submit the article separately, which I did, and had it deleted because there was a article "Road Safety" .
In road safety you give advice to authorities on road layout, but object to my giving advice to drivers. Should I just have said "road rescue organisations and the police park at an angle on the hard shoulder to avoid being killed"? you know just give facts, and let the punters work it out!
Best
Bob Bparslow ( talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello again!
I posted this yesterday. I wonder whether or not you noticed it. The reason why I have brought it to your talk page will become self-evident.
Your Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them? Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 7 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(3d) |archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive %(counter)d }}
Please can you advise me if I am correct in my interpretations and fill me in on the (don't know)?
(from the Teahouse)
How about an Archive Index for the Teahouse Q&A to help identify them? Then one could browse/identify past questions. See example at: Talk:Iraq War/Archive index. benzband ( talk) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Miss Angkhana will be informed of this, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Was adding a trout as an example pure mischief or simple coincidence…? ;) benzband ( talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions to the teahouse, you deserve this barnstar. extra999 ( talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at the Third Opinion Project. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
You are the 12th recipient of the 3O service award, which I present to individuals who work at the project and who have 50 or more edits there with at least one edit in the last six months. Thank you for your excellent work for the community. Respectfully, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If you and redpen are korean or you can read korean neswspaper, below expressions are commonsence in Korea. If FC Seoul is english club, I think redpen don't pick holes in this article the well-known GS Group,Choi Yong-Soo is FC Seoul legend, FC Seoul is one of the most successful and the most popular club
Anyway, Editing of wikipedia is my just hobby. It's not my job. I'm tired of redpen's picking holes about this article. I don't care..Suit yourself. Footwiks ( talk) 14:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Is it better to upload to WP or WM then or does it do the same? Thanks Jenova 20 20:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Jenova20 has given you a
Puddytat! Kitties promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kitties must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitty, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Writ - which is the script that adds the quick talkback |tb| on the Q&A page? It's not working properly for me on Safari, IE7 or Firefox. In Safari I lose the talk link on signatures although I have the |tb|. In IE7 talk and tb are both there but with line breaks in between and in Firefox I haven't got the talkback link. NtheP ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Writ Keeper! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Abhishek191288 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
— Abhishek Talk 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 04:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this edit! I was just looking for that revision, but couldn't find it due to the preceding revisions within. Really appreciate your help. MegastarLV ( talk) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thanks for your helpful, insightful and reasoned contributions to Talk:Chesapeake Energy. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Writ Keeper! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Writ Keeper. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Teabulla, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. A7 is not for products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thankyou for making me smile on my talk page :-) The Cavalry ( Message me) 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.
Here's what we're up to lately:
Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If your edit notice is accurate, you already have the Blackbeard page watchlisted. I just wanted to thank you for your time, and to let you know that I've responded there. Have a good one. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper,
Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 05:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Writ Keeper, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Sailendra.dalai90, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I've moved it to the correct userspace. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Did I do that? Greg Heffley 23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Tokyogirl79 (
talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Just wanted to drop a note here and explain in more detail. The notices about the auction don't generally show notability about the company, although it does back up the auction claims and would only be considered a non-notable event or routine article. All you really need is just one link to a reliable source that talks about the company itself rather than it almost closing and it should be ready to be posted. As far as the company website goes, we can't count that as a reliable source because it's released by the company. Hope this helps! Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
Hi Writ Keeper,
We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!
We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.
Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping me improve the article I created and for clarifying wikipedia terminology! Bizutage ( talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
On the 7 World Trade Center's talk page right after your comment I left a new comment to lay out my objection more plainly.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you still willing to offer your good offices on this? I think we've reached an impasse - I think my version is dandy, Carlaude thinks exactly the same, but different. It's settling into a revert war. We need to break the cycle. Where do we go next?
The squabble is essentially over two competing paragraphs, which can both be seen here. PiCo ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your thoughtful input on the Hedge fund article. Your assistance finding a compromise was greatly appreciated. — Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, do you have a minute to look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist) and tell me if I'm out in left field? Thanks-- UnQuébécois ( talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Writ - did see your last note on Steven's page. Thought it best not to use his talk page for continuing. But you've been kind and patient in your remarks, so I thought I'd add a little to why the matter of rules and their misapplication has disturbed me so. The poem thing was only confirmation of the problems I've seen. The real substance was a lengthy, complex BLP discussion in which I have had to stand by and watch a man's personal and professional reputation maligned and viciously attacked with the intent to cause harm (the WP article has actually caused real harm to him). I did what I could, but I was one against the many. And the many (though it is private information and I will not source it) are an organized group of editors who began their assault on the subject and continue to wage it with the sole purpose of doing harm to the subject. They employ WP rules to the advantage of doing that, not out of any intent to be accurate. They impose a tyranny of consensus, and simply bully anyone else aside. If you think I'm hyping this, consider they are among the same groups that squashed the Smithsonian's Cross-roads exhibit a few years back. If you think about it, any well-organized fringe group can do this, using literal interpretations of rules, consensus majorities and a bit of manipulation. In this case the second-sources they boast of being gold (media articles in the NYT, W.Post, et al.) actually originated with one of the editors of the BLP - and he bragged about this in the original version I attempted to revise. Anyway, through the weeks of trying to end this malicious attack, person continued to be harmed (even had one of his books pulled from publication by a major company that wanted to avoid the controversy started by WP), and continues to this day to suffer these consequences. There was nothing I could do to prevent this, under Wiki's rules. Even the BLP rules about living persons say that it is the challenger who must prove the case. Though I did prove it, it was ignored. More to the point is the fact that the rule, if you think about it, insists that the harm done continue until the proof against doing it is certain and has consensus. Any real world appraisal would say one cease immediately the potential of doing harm until the case for doing it is proven. Not the other way around. But that is not the case at Wiki. I've been charged, in the process of trying to prevent the damage, with vandalism, edit warring, NLTs, and everything else you can think of. Even my attempt to get the matter mediated was shot down with caustic remarks, and the rf for mediation was quickly closed without action. It goes on. But it opened my eyes to how the very things that are meant to keep Wiki honest and organized, can be perverted and twisted to serve personal agenda's. The irony is, that one can't even take something like I experienced to RFC or the village pump. in the former, their is no subject category for even talking about WP policies and their weaknesses; in the latter one would be accused of "shopping" - I was, by one of the parties in the dispute. So, this isn't just a matter of 'sour grapes' or 'don't let this experience discourage you'. There are fundamental flaws in how WP works. And there are people who have no compunction about using those flaws to their own advantage. Anyone who tries to stand up to what is the correct and decent thing, no matter what the rules say, doesn't stand a chance; doesn't even have a slingshot to work with. I do much thank you for your calming notes, though. I do know there are some here who are conscientiously trying to contribute, and wish them all the best. Red Slider (note: I put the four tildes here, but it doesn't seem to translate into my user name) 71.193.56.126 ( talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
All of this intense examination is to say, no matter what people have tried to do in the past, there are very good solutions and they haven't tried hard enough. Not that the few solutions I've suggested above are the best or near complete; but that they can be devised, and do much better at protecting BLP subjects from unwarranted attack than what we have. WP can be a good thing, at least a much better thing than it is, I've no doubt. But that it hasn't tried hard enough is equally obvious. It has people running loose and destroying its initial reputation and value. I think it time WP stopped defending the way it works and look at what is actually happening and put an end to it - a better end than its present system suggests is possible. I won't even guess how/if that is to be done. Given the procedural problems it has in just dealing with instances of abuse, I'd wager getting changes to prevent the abuse in the first place is a monumental undertaking. One I don't really have the time or the skill-set to do. I'll close with a Santayana quote that I once amended to read, "Those who haven't learned history are bound to repeat it; but, those who only know history are equally doomed to repeat it." Thanks for your indulgence, Writ Keeper. I hope I haven't unduly imposed on your time and attention. Much obliged.
I was deep into studying and researching Talk:Fine_print#Edit_war_over_.22Fine_print_is_illegal_in_some_cases..22 with a view to giving a 3O when you, you, you ... sniped it from me. I hope it freaking breaks your keyboard, rassinfrassing dadgnabin upstart <mutter, mutter, mutter>. (In all seriousness, thank you very, very much for all the work you're doing at 3O. Keep it up!) Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hi Writ! Do you think you could expand your already considerable kindness just a bit more and have another look at that Estelle talk? The other editor wants to keep me engaged in some personal debate over terminology which I now find superfluous. Looks to he like h/s won't give up unless we use the exact term h/s wants. Could you please ask h if h/s is unhappy with the current text (which I think is excellent now) and what h/s would like to see improved if so? The talk needs to concern itself with that now, and I've had it. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, once again. I was wondering if I could get your advice on the discussion going on over with the Mark Howe article? I am not trying to say that what Centpacrr ( talk · contribs) is stating is true or not, but not verifiable per Wikipedia standards. I think that he is taking this a little to personally, and not following WP:V or WP:NOR guidelines. I have tried to find verifiable sources to support his version, but have seemed to fail. Thanks. -- UnQuébécois ( talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
ATTN: Writ Keeper:
The text of your complaint smacks of being nothing more than a boilerplate. I do not know what a "verbal discourse" is and I do not actually care. I spent many hours correcting hundreds of extremely serious actual factual errors. And, I presented references where anyone who would bother could easily verify the voracity of my changes, corrections, deletions, definitions, etc. Then you blithely disregarded, dismissed, and deleted my effort in its entirety, evidently, based upon the recommendation of a computer algorithm.
As it stands, this page contains many factual errors including those that perpetrate dangerous ignorance. Obviously, it was written by a person or persons with such a superficial understanding of the subject that they simply made it up as they went along, adding error after error. I did essentially nothing other than to correct those errors, properly define words and terms, add additional useful information, etc.
Based upon this experience, it would be very easy for me to believe that Wikipedia does not care about the accuracy of the information it presents.
As that text now exists, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it must be deleted in its entirety because it presents flatly false and misleading information of many types — not one significant paragraph or photograph caption is immune from these problems and at least one entire significant discussion is entirely bogus. Therefore, anyone reading that page and trusting any information contained therein will gain nothing but erroneous beliefs. Therefore, as a recognized authority on this subject, I demand that this discussion be deleted in its entirety.
And, if this is how this organization treats contributors, please be so kind as to remove my user name, I have better things to do and better places to find factual information. (Based upon this one subject, which I know very deeply, I must assume that any subject that I do not know contains equally false and erroneous information, so why would I ever want to refer to Wikipedia for information of any kind — only a fool would assume that information on any other subject was accurate or waste more time trying to improve something after being treated so dismissively.)
Sincerely Yours, Fundamental Motivation ( talk) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Writ Keeper: I added various reference sources where you could easily verify the voracity of my factual corrections. Toward providing my bona fides, what else can I do? If some private way exists to provide my pertinent resume information to you and, if that would make any difference, I am happy to do so. Y seem to have restored the discussion of firearms terminology claiming that it is misleading, which is utter and complete nonsense that stems from the writer or writers involved being ignorant of the correct terminology; my discussion contained factually accurate information. As that page now stands it is so chocked full of potentially dangerous and misleading information (refer to the actual causes of Brandon Lee's death — ultimately that the people involved did not know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge) I am quite serious about either correcting or entirely deleting the discussion. I have just done so. I want to apologise for anything untoward I have suggested here or otherwise, I am very confused by all of this. Fundamental Motivation ( talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, We have a dispute here . You were involved in similar dispute between us here. Since you are familiar with the topic, I invite you help resolve this dispute. Thanks. Ramcrk ( talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
(redacted; moved to user's talk page) ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Writ! Glad to see you lending a hand. As requested on the "Your hosts" page, it'd be wonderful to have people who are answering questions (hosts) participate in all areas that the hosts are asked to participate in per that host page. Two things I'd LOVE help with specifically: inviting people and when you are finished answering a question on the Teahouse page, it'd be awesome if you'd leave a Teahouse Talkback on the editors page. These are all necessities during (and honestly, beyond) the pilot phase of this project, and is very important in us tracking metrics to judge the projects successes, or failures. If this is going to be an issue, feel free to let me know! Thanks again for participating, you're doing an awesome job :) Sarah ( talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Merci de votre mot de gentillesse. Nous sommes tous humains vous et moi et tous les autres -- Vieux supporteur de hockey féminin ( talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Message sent with Global message delivery.
Hi WK! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:
I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Writ Keeper, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah ( talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Thanks for helping move guests at the Teahouse. I tended to leave one guest at the bottom, maybe so new guests don't feel that something went wrong when their profile didn't look like the others, or maybe so they didn't feel lonely! Anyway, that was my process, do with it what you will :) heather walls ( talk) 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For those fine userscripts of yours. Way to improve the host experience on WP:Teahouse! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey Writ! Thanks again for all the great work you've put into the Teahouse scripts. I do have one question. With the invite template script, I'm not a big fan of having my signature and the extra verbiage ("I and the other hosts...) outside of the template. Is there a way I can modify that? Or should I just keep using my original cut and paste method? Thanks! Sarah ( talk) 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The signature is IN the template. I hope this helps! Thanks again. Sarah ( talk) 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
................................other advisors postings............................
Thank you everyone for your advice and help. I have been struggling with using Internet Explorer 8 up to now. Also, been unable to get much speed out the editing/show preview/show changes/save page sequence – and that's putting it mildly..! Tonight, I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox. Wow! My aged PC is "on fire" – it's lightening. Just tried your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} , AND IT WORKED. Kindest regards to you all, Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Writ, great that someone can write scripts. Query on this one, it doesn't appear to work on user pages that I create i.e. where I'm the first person to talk to that user. Perhaps because it's tied to the move menu and that doesn't work on new pages because there is nothing to move? NtheP ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Although you marked this user talk page as a page created by your script for a non-existent user, it seems that your script has actually created an account, because User talk:NaN does not show the "This account is not registered" message. There is something odd about it, though, because clicking "User rights" at the bottom of Special:Contributions/NaN produces this, with no date/time of account creation, though those displays normally look like this. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
$.post(getSubmitURL(), {wpTextbox1 : invitationBody, wpSection : "new", wpEditToken : mw.user.tokens.get('editToken'), wpStarttime : timestamp, wpEdittime : timestamp, wpSummary : invitationSectionTitle}, function(){ alert("Invitation posted!"); });where the getSubmitURL() function had a bug in it that returned the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:NaN?action=submit§ion=newThe bug involved an extra + sign when formatting the user name, which caused it to return "NaN" (i.e. not a number) rather than the user name. I'm not sure how this would've had anything to do with creating an account...can you tell, or point me to someone who knows more about this than I do? I guess this is what happens when you play with fire... :( Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 17:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for the Answer! Monareal ( talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
You're welcome! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I need a good symbols on my signature and I want my whole signature to be bold.-- 20thtryer ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User talk:Writ Keeper|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ Keeper|&#x 2654;]]and it will look like this in the end: Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔. If I wanted to make all that text bold, I would just surround the text with the three single quotes like this:
'''[[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User talk:Writ Keeper|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ Keeper|&#x 2654;]]'''and it would come out looking like this: Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ If I were to make a signature for you, with the bold text and the same symbols, I would write something like:
'''[[User:20thtryer|20th Tryer]] [[User talk:20thtryer|&#x 2687;]][[Special:Contributions/20thtryer|&#x 2654;]]'''and it would come out looking like this: 20th Tryer ⚇ ♔. Note that, in all of the examples above, you need to take out the space between the x and the 2 for the symbols to show up.
I added some useful refs to the talk page; of note, there is an article on another wiki which almost seems to be the basis of this one, and contains exactly the sort of coverage I wanted the wikipedia article to have. However, its sources are paper books, so I cannot verify the citations at all and don't feel comfortable just copying the citations over. Besides looking up this coverage, I don't feel I really have the resources or expertise to actually rewrite the article.
I'm not sure what authority the R3O actually holds, so I haven't removed the section from the main article again. I guess I'm asking if you could do it based on the R3O? If not, well, at least I provided some references for someone with the expertise and resources to spritz up the article. 70.34.147.3 ( talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.36 ( talk) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
For cleaning my talk page. I'd just finished giving the IP their 4th warning and was just waiting for the next one to send it to AIV. That one did it! Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 16:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thank you very much for your help! I will use the Teahouse now! Thank you! Wilfbibby ( talk) 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I submitted the article in "Road Safety", but was told to submit the article separately, which I did, and had it deleted because there was a article "Road Safety" .
In road safety you give advice to authorities on road layout, but object to my giving advice to drivers. Should I just have said "road rescue organisations and the police park at an angle on the hard shoulder to avoid being killed"? you know just give facts, and let the punters work it out!
Best
Bob Bparslow ( talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello again!
I posted this yesterday. I wonder whether or not you noticed it. The reason why I have brought it to your talk page will become self-evident.
Your Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them? Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 7 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(3d) |archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive %(counter)d }}
Please can you advise me if I am correct in my interpretations and fill me in on the (don't know)?
(from the Teahouse)
How about an Archive Index for the Teahouse Q&A to help identify them? Then one could browse/identify past questions. See example at: Talk:Iraq War/Archive index. benzband ( talk) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Writ Keeper. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Miss Angkhana will be informed of this, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Was adding a trout as an example pure mischief or simple coincidence…? ;) benzband ( talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse Barnstar | |
For your tireless contributions to the teahouse, you deserve this barnstar. extra999 ( talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at the Third Opinion Project. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
You are the 12th recipient of the 3O service award, which I present to individuals who work at the project and who have 50 or more edits there with at least one edit in the last six months. Thank you for your excellent work for the community. Respectfully, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If you and redpen are korean or you can read korean neswspaper, below expressions are commonsence in Korea. If FC Seoul is english club, I think redpen don't pick holes in this article the well-known GS Group,Choi Yong-Soo is FC Seoul legend, FC Seoul is one of the most successful and the most popular club
Anyway, Editing of wikipedia is my just hobby. It's not my job. I'm tired of redpen's picking holes about this article. I don't care..Suit yourself. Footwiks ( talk) 14:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Is it better to upload to WP or WM then or does it do the same? Thanks Jenova 20 20:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Jenova20 has given you a
Puddytat! Kitties promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kitties must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitty, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Writ - which is the script that adds the quick talkback |tb| on the Q&A page? It's not working properly for me on Safari, IE7 or Firefox. In Safari I lose the talk link on signatures although I have the |tb|. In IE7 talk and tb are both there but with line breaks in between and in Firefox I haven't got the talkback link. NtheP ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)