Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Teahouse invite welcome template

Just a reminder that Ben created Template:Welcome-t which is pretty cool :) Sarah (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This template is great! The only thing that would be cool would be if it added a paragraph similar to {{welcome-anon}} when it's left on an IPs page. Great work, Ben! --Nathan2055^talk 00:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just created Template:Welcome-anon-t. benzband (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse welcome for IPs - now available!

Howdy! I decided to make a new Teahouse welcome similar to {{welcome-t}} but for IPs using the clear language found at {{welcome-anon-border}}. The result? {{welcome-t-anon}}! It still could use a documentation template, and may need a few updates, but should be good to go. Feel free to load into Twinkle and use at will! I will update the Teahouse template page with it later. See you soon, Nathan2055^talk 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This morning I was thinking "I could really use a welcome template for IP's for the Teahouse" so you must have been reading my wiki-mind :) Great work, adding to Twinkle now! Sarah (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great news - but, I'm a Twinkle Novice and still dealing with "whack-a-newbie" - so how do I " Feel free to load into Twinkle and use at will!"? I do love freedom and free will - so give us a hint! P^) I'm still struggling with reverting Hindu Vs Moslem sectarian vandalism, and being told off - so any help is appreciated.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I learned this just 2 seconds ago. Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Under tag section there is a "Custom article maintenance tags to display" Welcome User section there is a "Custom welcome templates to display" area with an Edit items button. You can add it to that by typing welcome-t in the first box that comes up and welcome with teahouse in the second box, then do it again and add welcome-t-anon and anon welcome with teahouse. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignore me, I can't get it to work. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ryan! So does it still give me the option to personalise the message - or does it do the Bot thing and just paste it on the page? I have found that personalising communication gets a more positive response. Is it Twinkle - and then go back and personalise - or do you get the intermediate step/option of personalising before it ends up on the page. Not sure of when and how to trial it - so asking before I have to double edit - and confusing the newbie more than necessary. P^)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - I need a bigger monitor - or three - to cope with the demands of Wiki Land! 17 Inches is just not enough! I never believed I would say that! P^)

I assume you missed this. ^^ BTW, i've made a few changes to welcome-t-anon.

And for those who are still struggling with Twinkle, please refer to my previous comment at #WP welcoming and Teahouse invitations, a question. benzband (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd, I just checked and its there now. I thought I bypassed the cash by refreshing (Chrome) but it must not have worked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a few more changes to the template (here and here). In response to the Twinkle question, you need to clear your cache completely after making an update to your Twinkle preferences or your custom JavaScript. Hope this helps! --Nathan2055^talk 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Revamp to the template index!

Howdy again! I just preformed a major update to the Teahouse's template index! It now has all of our new templates, including {{welcome-t}}, {{welcome-t-anon}}, and all the new userboxes. Check it out! --Nathan2055^talk 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! Sweet! Thanks Nathan! Sarah (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Any time. I also cleaned up the page so that it uses a more consistent appearance. --Nathan2055^talk 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost

A fair few mentions about the Teahouse at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Question about coverage and has it (we) been a success or not. Should be interesting to read the report when it comes out. NtheP (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP! I left a new section stating that a fourth installment of The Tea Leaf will be out soon and of course our big grand metrics report which we are all so proud of - and you all should be too, since without the Hosts this project can't be what it is. We also have exciting new opportunities to continue with the Teahouse that we can't wait to work on ya'll :) Thanks for the heads up! Sarah (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarah - forgive me If I've got me marketing and analytic head on again! I keep looking at the Beautiful example that is the Teahouse, and wondering at real world examples. I have been poking about, and looking at who has done what and when, There are some real success stories. They really could do with being illustrated and illuminated to others - and the wider Wiki Land audience. Metrics and Stats are great for the people who get them - but for others real life (been there - seen it - got the T-Shirt - Loved the Tea - best thing ever) examples will count more. There is a real story there that needs to be told - and made human! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone will be impressed with the report. While it has the necessary metrics and numbers we need to prove itself, it also has stories and feedback. Sarah (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm a great believer in feedback. P^) ... and I do feel that it has value.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Metrics are up! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Find the answer here"

Previous discussions: Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 1#"Find the answer here" and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 2#"Find the answer here"

The main page question box fetches questions from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent. The links break as the threads at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions are archived. Either:

• someone regularly updates the subpages Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/[1 through 7]
• the questions are not updated so often and the links point to the archives
• the questions are not updated so often and the links point to a particular revision of the questions page
• [insert miracle solution here]

I already simplified the process by creating Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-answer. benzband (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Does J-Mo's announcement in the Teahouse/Host lounge regarding HostBot solve the archiving issue? heather walls (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! :D (watchlisted the page while i'm at it) WritKeeper mentioned HostBot before, however until it can be set up should the links just be left broken? benzband (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be working now. Apparently there were some bugs in my code (surprise, surprise) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't though. See Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Invalid link for answers to Recent questions. benzband (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it is currently working most of the time. The recent-questions script picks a random sample of 5 questions that were posted within the past two days, and updates the questions every two days. Miszabot is currently set to archive threads that have seen no action within the past 5 days, so MiszaBot will not have archived these questions in the meantime (which would break the link, obviously). But there are a number of things that can happen which will break the "find the answer here" link. Some examples:

1. the database that the scripts and tables are located on goes down (which has happened at least 4 times in the past two weeks... sheesh!). This will result in the questions not being updated in a timely manner, meaning that when MiszaBot does eventually archive them, the links will be broken.
2. The question title is altered after being posted. Even altering the title by a single character will lead to a broken link.
3. The question title contains certain non-ASCII characters which are garbled in translation. This is rare, but can happen.

I'm working on making the system more robust. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to articles

Do we need to improve the instructions as the top of the Q page on how to link to articles? More and more links posted in new questions seem to be full urls, so something is falling down somewhere. NtheP (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think anything is falling down, usually they are just new and make all kinds of mistakes. I'd rather see the page be simple and about asking questions only. If they do something incorrect, it's a great time to show them how to do it. Many of the help areas are overwhelming because of wanting to teach everything at once. The more text we add, I suspect fewer people will read it (I am not sure how many people read it now). I guess I am saying I would rather remove the current instructions and teach it when it comes up. heather walls (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the (brief) instructions for doing so could be duplicated within some extra text in the popup question box. -- Trevj (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Until these instructions are added to the Ask box instructions (how is this done?) shouldn't they be reinstated at the top of Teahouse/Questions? (Perhaps a more concise wording can be agreed upon.) The instructions were in place at the top for about 4 weeks, but we don't know how many people were reading them. Does anyone fancy trawling back through the posts, to see if there were any noticeable observations regarding posters including wikilinks (or not) using the standard double square brackets markup? -- Trevj (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Database reports bot - has it gone to sleep?

Just wondering - the Database reports page has had no real updates in 3 days.

1.1 Brand new editors - none for over 72 hours?

1.2 Newish Editors - again not one for over 72 hours?

Is it still working, or are there new editors out there who aint being listed, and not getting fresh tea?

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan is on it, don't fret! It was down Friday night. Sarah (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK! Update: the database report runs on database 1047. That database has been "dead" since Friday. J-mo has moved over to database 42. Right now it is more stable. There are some hardware issues and so forth, as well. It will take many hours of work and J-mo intends on having the database report(s) running by Thursday morning Pacific time. For now, additional inviting resources can be found here. Thanks for your patience :) Sarah (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - I had seen some weird outages over the weekend, so I was aware of a server or two being on the poorly side. ... and I'm not fretting... just missing the opportunity to see what the newest editors are up to! It can be shocking and an eye opener ... so cuts down on the caffeine first thing in the morning. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - finished migrating my scripts and tables. Looks like at least the invitee reports are working again. I'm going to do some more QA today and tomorrow, but we should be out of the woods (until the next thing goes wrong!). If anything is not as it should be, please post to my talk page and I'll get on it ASAP. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pilot period metrics report has been posted

My fellow hosts: I've published the Teahouse metrics report for the pilot period on the metrics page. Please pore over the data and provide feedback here! The report is pretty comprehensive, but there are still a few things for me to add in (more IT woes have kept me from accessing all my precious data), so I'll be adding in bits a pieces of new data over the next week. I plan to continue to run some of these analyses on an ongoing basis, probably monthly, as we move forward. Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one beautiful report J-mo! Thank you!! Sarah (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to say - these reports are far too well written and far too comprehensive. [8^{ I have been reading and checking and I simply can't find the errors - omissions- and the mistakes that are required of such long and detailed reports. [8^{ It so no fun - and it means I have nothing to moan about! [8^{ Having to read quality reports and check evidence only to find that there are no errors is so disheartening - and if it carries on, I may have to leave Wikipedia. Could someone please redraft this report and even include a typo, just to show Good Faith?
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Media-hound! I'm sorry to hear that you found the quality of our reports so frustratingly high! We hope you can find the strength to go on and continue editing Wikipedia regardless. If you have questions about these reports in the future, or just want some advice on how to deal with discouraging experiences like this one, we hope you'll stop by the Q&A board and ask! ;) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget - we're the Teahouse

Here is your gentle reminder - we're the Teahouse - a different type of help space. We say hi when new editors visit (Hi Sarah, welcome to the Teahouse!) and we don't link to lots of jargon. Be friendly, be warm. Feel free to review the host tips page. Hosts lead by example, and while we have people who aren't hosts who come by to help - it's the Host role to not only help out editor's, but to also provide gentle reminders about the warm experience of the Teahouse. Thanks everyone! Sarah (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Official" Teahouse Pilot Report is out!

...hi everyone! The official Teahouse Pilot Report is up on meta! Tomorrow we will move it to Wikipedia and share the news, but, we wanted to share it with our Hosts first! Without you this project wouldn't be the success it is! Myself, J-mo, Heather and Siko thank you for all of your volunteerism during this pilot period, and I look forward to your continued participation as the Teahouse moves into "phase two." (Detail soon!) Can't wait for your feedback, here, on meta, or wherever :) Sarah (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading and I even learnt something about the Japanese tea ceremony too! With the many positive outcomes, I look forward to my continued involvement here with the numerous guests and other hosts. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a good comment by bawolff there, which received no answer. Nemo 07:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the comment? heather walls (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your response to the answer I gave to bawolff on the blog post, Nemo. Is that what you're referring to? Not sure I understand what you mean by "What’s unclear is not the definition of the groups, but how you explain the difference in the metrics." Could you expand on that a little? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Drop-in guests and invited guests participate in different ways

From Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics#.C2.BB_Drop-in_guests_and_invited_guests_participate_in_different_ways: «we suspect that this disparity exists because guests who had not been specifically invited may have felt relatively more comfortable performing lower-stakes activities». I think the reason is very obvious: users who want to ask a question look for a place where to ask it and find the teahouse, while users who don't don't have a reason to look for it and don't find it, or, if invited, they do other things they're suggested to do. Nemo 07:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

↑ agree. benzband (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone feeling up to it?

Was patrolling Category:Wikipedians looking for help and came across User talk:MichaelCrawford#Who Do I Have To Blow Around Here To Be Considered Notable Enough For A Wikipedia Article?… benzband (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just having a section header like that makes me not want to help! Sarah (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Sarah, it appears to be a doozy. I did request undeletion to my userspace so I could look at it but left the help template in case another editor wants to weigh in. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the article was moved to User:Ryan Vesey/Michael David Crawford. The problem I have, is the person seems at least relatively significant, they just haven't been written about a lot. In fact this was one of the few news sources I could find, and it's not exactly thrilling. I feel bad for the guy because of things like this threatening Kuro5hin page. The reasons I find him significant are that his website was linked from sites like mind.org.uk. And if his story is true, that his essay is distributed by California mental help agencies, that would certainly be significant. At the same time, he does have schizoaffective disorder and could be imagining all of this. What do people think? Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I know its a long shot, but what about WP:ACADEMIC #1 (i.e., "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic works")? Isn't there a way--that is to say, I know there is, I just don't know how to do it--of checking how many times a person has been cited? Ask him to focus on getting a ref for the essay distributed by California mental help agencies (the brochure itself might work), as that would certainly help his case. Outside of that, we have another good example of how people who write stuff have to do much more to become notable than people who, say, play in one pro sports game. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • He isn't exactly much of an academic, but its worth a shot. What do you think about the oregonlive article? I'm stuck between reporting it for neutrality or ignoring it for WP:UNDUE. If you really have the desire, it would be great if people would help edit the article directly and do a bit of a collaborative thing. I took it on in the middle of many other things I want to do, so it will take me a while on my own. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's certainly a roundabout way of confirming notability, but if his work has been as widely distributed/used as he says, it might be enough. Which article is that? I didn't see any sources/links going to that site. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There's problem number umpteen. His site has been down since late May. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New potential vandal fighters

Hi there, Teahouse Hosts. I'm currently involved in the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, a training programme for potential new vandal patrollers which aims to support them in that area of Wikipedia, and keep them from making the mistakes new users are inclined to. If any guests at the Teahouse look interested in vandal patrolling, it might be worth sending them our way. I am happy to answer any questions you might have. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict solutions?

Dear awesome hosts, while looking at some questions this weekend I started to wonder if an—"I'm working on this" template would be helpful. Something you could pop into a question section to indicate you are working on an answer. I would hope this would prevent people from duplicating work at the same time, and further answers could be added subsequently. What do you think? Would this be useful to you? Something like a simplified version of "Placing a submission under review" like in AfC. (If someone has suggested this before, forgive me!) heather walls (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I dunno. I'm pretty sure I would never remember to use it, and does it really make a difference, anyway? As long as people are getting their questions answered, it doesn't see to matter who's doing the answering. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(Oh my goodness, I edit conflicted ) In my opinion, I feel like edit conflicts are beneficial when responding at the Teahouse. There are many instances when one editor gives piece of information A and another gives piece of information B and the combination of A and B are much better than either A or B. A template like this discourages other editors from responding, and decreases the amount of knowledge available to the person asking the question. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem to me, although I was relieved there wasn't a conflict when I was writing the answer about tables :-) NtheP (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

May be helpful for the longer answers, but we already have {{Doing}}, which could be used, e.g. {{Doing|Lengthy answer being prepared}} to give  Lengthy answer being prepared.... -- Trevj (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A template might be useful; however, it'd had to include an invitation to other users to answer themselves as well - a Ryan Vesey said, having multiple people comment can be beneficial. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC about user warnings

There is an RfC going on right now that involves making the level one warnings a little friendlier. Since that is the Teahouse's mission, I thought I'd send a link you're way. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse enters phase two!

Hi everyone! We wanted to let you know that the Teahouse has now entered phase two! Phase two will allow the project to evolve into a more sustainable project and will require community participation to make that happen. We're currently working on the invitation process right now. I encourage you to take a look at the phase two page on meta and we look forward to continuing to build and grow a wonderful Teahouse with your help and support! Sarah (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

New Userboxes!

Hi! Penyulap made a few userboxes for us!

Code	Result
{{User:Rosalina2427/Teahouse New Editor}}	This user enjoyed a cup of tea at the Teahouse.	Usage
{{User:Rosalina2427/Teahouse Host}}	This user is a host at the Teahouse.	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea}}	This user is a host at the Teahouse	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea1}}	This user is a host at the Teahouse.	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea|This user likes the Teahouse}}	This user likes the Teahouse	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea1|This user likes the Teahouse}}	This user likes the Teahouse	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea2}}	This user helps at the you can too	Usage
{{User:Penyulap/UBX/PenTea3}}	This user likes the drop in and take a look	Usage

Uh, I don't believe this was timestamed, so I'll do it now. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

Ok, I've just removed a comment by User:Volunteer Marek from the question page (see this diff) as there is no action being taken against NewtonGeek (talk · contribs) by way of WP:SPI or anything else. If you look at NewtonGeek's contribs; for someone with very few he has been editing in some places you would not expect, but to leave the comment on the question page without taking it further smacked to me of a lack of good faith being assumed and not the type of experience we want to demonstrate to new users.

That said if any other host disagrees with me and wants to revert my reversion I'm not going to be bothered about it. NtheP (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we need some method of topic banning editors from the Teahouse. Otherwise, we run the risk of editors unwilling to follow the Teahouse rules ruining the entire project. This is in reference to this and other issues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the above is not an opinion as to the status of NewtonGeek but is a reflection on the inappropriate act of calling someone a Sockpuppet at the Teahouse Q&A page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree! And I think it's great that the hosts are taking an active role in thinking of this. It might also be good to inform editor's why you remove their comments. Sarah (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If I'd thought about it at the time, I would have. But 24 hrs after the event I think is too late. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, do you think we would be able to decide on topic-bans without needing to go to ANI every time? Or could we go to AN once and make sure the community supports the Teahouse's ability to do so? In addition, would a violation of that sort of topic ban be grounds for a block just as violation of another topic ban would be? Ahh, I hate even thinking of blocks and the like when I have the word Teahouse on the top of my page, but I feel it's a necessary evil to make sure the Teahouse keeps its primary goal in mind. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I really hope we don't go down the lines of topic bans. I don't think we've had anyone come anywhere close to requiring one. A couple of people (I think) have needed a quiet reminder about how we operate and have either fallen into line or gone away. Examples like the one I raised at the start of this section are one off "drive by" comments only. I would also not like to contemplate being able to impose a ban without going to one of the dispute resolution paths, most likely AN/I - that smacks of some sort of special status for the Teahouse which again goes the principal of the project. NtheP (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What if we instituted some sort of 'hide' policy, where responses that were deemed unhelpful or uncivil could be put into a one-row table or div that was collapsed by default? IIRC we tried something like this at the thread level for a while, though I can't find any examples to point to offhand. That way, we're not deleting anything, and hopefully not escalating the issue, but still sending a message about behavioral norms?. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a hide policy. I can think of almost no way I could see the TH and topic bans in the same sentence. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Collapse into a one row table with the title bar the same colour as the page background and a title like "Off topic content" should make the point. NtheP (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Livechat, anyone?

I recall that when the Teahouse was first created, one of the things that people wanted for it was a live chat service. Now that we are in phase two, I decided to set up #wikipedia-th-help ^connect, a channel that will hopefully provide livechat help for our noobs in the near future. I've gone ahead and voiced everyone with a Wiki(p|m)edia cloak, if you need ops just drop me a line on my talk page. Any suggestions on the next steps? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

+1 THIS. Heather originally designed a nice IRC link into the header template, You can see it here. We eventually removed the link because a) IRC is kind of confusing if you don't already use it, b) we didn't want to give hosts too many responsibilities at the outset, even if one of those was just "hang out in this room" and c) we didn't want to room to be left unstaffed when guests showed up with questions.

However I'm actually pretty confident that we can handle the staffing issue now (lots of us hang out in #wikipedia-teahouse all the time). And since the Q&A board is so clearly active, guests who get confused/intimidated by IRC will likely be comfortable asking their question there. So I vote we link to this channel in the header again, something like this perhaps:

<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:1.2em;color:#8c8d06;text-shadow: #666 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-th-help get live help on IRC]</span>

get live help on IRC

If we don't like the result, we can always drop it later. What do others think? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I love the link you created. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

All Heather's doing :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work Heather :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We should really draft a livechat guideline page. Heather, nthep, and I are currently discussing some general guidelines. Remembering to welcome all editors and general acting as if it was as publicly logged as the teahouse is. We should be extremely courteous with all editors on IRC and not allow ourselves to slip because the comments aren't stored. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, do you want to start the guide in the host lounge? Great idea! heather walls (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can work on that hopefully tomorrow, bringing my siblings to a drive in movie theater right now. Perhaps Mabdul is correct below, we could possibly encourage #wikipedia-en-help for help assistance and encourage hosts to frequent the area. Guests and hosts could congregate at #wikipedia-teahouse for the community aspect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is live, so someone other than me please come to the channel. And feel free to discuss the phrasing. I didn't say IRC because so few people are familiar with the term :) heather walls (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• #wikipedia-th-help
• #wikipedia-en-help
• #wikipedia-en-classroom
• #en-nnu-help (merged a few month ago)
• #wikipedia-en

and likely many more channels I missed. There are times in -en-help which helpees requesting help and don't get it since "Indians" living in a timezone which is not served by Europeans and Americans... Do we really want to invite helpees yet in another help channel? mabdul 23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding other channels, I have been in those channels. Many of them (usually the non-help) are full of some crude and unhelpful language and behavior. I'm all for fun and being amusing, but new users are really easy to scare off with blue comedy and inside jokes. The point of having (yet another) chat is to bring the welcoming friendliness to live help. We can't exactly go into previous help spaces and ask people to behave differently. I think it's a worthwhile effort to make. heather walls (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Err, for the case that the WMF really wants to do something great, then they should pay a developed developing an extension which is a real webchat hiding all comments by all helpers and other helpees in the webchat except if somebody is starting with Helpee1: answer of question... Many helpees are confused that the webchat is an open chat with ongoing discussions about different topics. Oh and by the way: at mediawiki.org there are two webchat extensions, but both seem dead nor working. :-/ mabdul 23:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! But that is not in our purview ;) heather walls (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys! So I had the first real guest in the Teahouse IRC. It was great, thanks for setting this up! Once again it would be awesome if people who tend to be on IRC anyway can come hang out in there, too. I think this will be good for people who are shy about asking their question in Q&A for some reason. Maybe we can assuage their fears a little and get them to interact on the project pages. heather walls (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've mostly finished writing up the permissions list. Please register for a cloak if you plan to help. This will voice you and give you the neat plus next to your name, plus your IP is masked. I have given mabdul and stwalkerster ops and Heather and Ryan list editor permissions. If anyone else needs it, don't hesitate to ask! One last question; how are the draft guidelines coming along? Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New bot proposal: automated invites. Input requested!

Hi all,

I'd like get your input on a bot proposal I'm putting together, like I did back in April, when HostBot first came online.

One of the big items for the current sprint of the 'phase two plan' is to increase the number of invitations sent to new editors every day. To make sure that Teahouse hews closely to its mission of active outreach to very new editors, we need to invite more of them. But we know that manually inviting people is time-consuming and tedious. During the pilot period, Sarah and RosieStep took on the lion's share of invites, and the rest of us invited a little, a lot, or not at all depending on our availability and inclination.

I don't think that model is sustainable. I'd like to make automatic invites one of HostBot's tasks. Instead of putting together a daily invitee report, HostBot would automatically invite all the new editors it's currently including in that report by adding an invite template to their talk pages.

Of course, automatic inviting is similar in some ways to automatic welcoming, which is one of the perennially rejected bot proposals. The reasons generally given for rejecting welcome bot proposal are:

1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
2. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.

I think these are valid concerns, but I don't think they necessarily apply to our situation.

• First off, even our 'personal' invites aren't usually very personal--there simply isn't enough time to personalize each one when you have to send out 50! And although HostBot itself isn't capable of mentoring or assisting newcomers, it links people to Teahouse, where there's mentoring and assistance aplenty :)
• Secondly, although it's useful for hosts to exercise their 'editorial judgement' when deciding who to invite, it appears that the danger of accidentally inviting blatant vandals is fairly low: in my pilot retention analysis for instance, I didn't find any appreciable difference between the percentage of Teahouse invitees who were subsequently blocked and the percentage of new editors in the control group who were subsequently blocked. And it was less than 10% in both cases. And we haven't experienced a whole lot of vandalism in the last four months, despite inviting the occasional bad seed. As to 'pointless edits', we'd only be inviting about 70 people per day through this automated process, so it's not a huge volume of editing activity in the grand scheme of things. And we'd only invite folks who had already made at least 10 edits and weren't currently blocked, which decreases the likelihood that the invitation would be a completely empty gesture.

So my questions to you are:

• do you think that an automated Teahouse invite bot is worthwhile?
• do you think that automatic Teahouse invites would be too impersonal and make invitees less likely to visit?
• how concerned are you about the possibility that we might invite a vandal or two?
• are there other ways we can significantly increase the daily invite rate without automation?

Many thanks, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes.
• Not moreso than now.
• Not moreso than now.
• None that come to mind.

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

↑ this. :D benzband (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone sought wider community input first? benzband (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, no and again no: see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots. mabdul 23:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mabdul. I received a welcome on English wiki by Sdgjake and it truly made me feel welcome. Not long ago, a bot left me a welcome on romanian wiki, I also had a bot leave me a welcome on another obscure language wiki (vietnamese maybe), both of those did nothing to make me feel welcome because it was automatic and impersonal. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I got welcomed by someone, and it gave me the warm fuzzies until I found out that it was just a template, and that many others had gotten the exact same thing. Killed my warm fuzzies stone dead. Speaking personally, I don't see why a bot spending a second to leave a preformatted template is any different from a person spending a second to leave a preformatted template. Maybe it's just me, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

/me agrees with everything Writ Keeper said. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Support There is no difference between a person or a bot leaving a template, except that in it saves people hours and hours of making individual invites. I really think we need to do this, unless everyone who votes against it wants to spend an hour every day sending invites and my bet would be that you don't and can't. People *do* come from the invitations and we still need to help people find the Teahouse because it isn't easy. This seems like a brilliant solution.
There are two significant differences between this and a blanket welcome. One is that the invites go to a small, slightly vetted group not just "anyone". The other is that they are being invited to the Teahouse and hopefully will find their experience welcoming when they arrive. We want them to come to a central place so they can actively see the life that is happening on Wikipedia (which is there but fairly hidden when you don't know the ropes). Anyone who wants to write more personal follow up notes after an invite or when someone visits, I would strongly encourage that awesome idea.
I'm not at all worried about inviting vandals this way. The numbers are not that high and I bet I invited a vandal or two myself, it's just too hard to tell sometimes. Not to mention, some really great Wikipedians had slightly shakey beginnings, you just never know. heather walls (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Heather's argument here. I would still be opposed if it was inviting all editors, but inviting the editors on the database report would be fine. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Keep the input coming; I'm not going to decide whether to submit the proposal 'til we've had ample time to talk amongst ourselves. @Mabdul: I did see that page. I even linked to it in my original post :) I'm arguing that the stipulations there don't apply in our case. I take it you think they do apply. Can you say more? @Benzband: I haven't solicited wider input yet. I wanted to take the temperature here first. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's play the game: I'm following many BFRAs, so you will get the same questions if you don't give the answer on these questions before you got asked:

• How many edit will the bot do?
• By which 'data' does the bot decide who gets an invitation?
• Will the user recognize that this was a bot and no human? Moreover: (and in this case this is essential for this project): will somebody watchlist the talk page?
• related to the last q: which template is used? The one the AFC helper tool is using? Or a modified version?

There are many questions which can follow, but at the moment these are the important ones. mabdul 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is very helpful Mabdul. Thanks for the detail--your expertise is invaluable to me in this case, since I haven't been following any other requests myself. I think we can address these issues. Taking them in order:

• Around 50-70 per day, same as the # of new editors who are currently displayed in the invitee report.
• User joined within the past 24 hour, has made at least 10 edits so far, and has not been blocked OR user joined within the past four days, has made at least 20 edits over at least 3 edit sessions, and has not been blocked. We may be able to screen for some other log actions that would suggest bad faith, or check to make sure the user doesn't have certain warning templates on their talk pages... not sure if those are necessary/desirable parameters, but they're possible to get.
• User will recognize that this is a bot. We can add language to that effect into the template itself.
• We'd use a modified version of the standard Welcome Template.

Any of these answers seem like they would ring any alarm bells for the reviewers? Also, if you're thinking of any follow-ups I should know how to answer, bring 'em on. I like this game! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the answers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

oops, forgot to answer one question! In response to 'will somebody watchlist their talk page', what if we set up an external watchlist that we could all monitor, like this: [1]

Not sure if we could just piggy-back on the existing tool (which is looking for different kinds of templates, in a different namespace), but I guess we could set one up of our own if we needed to. What would we be watching for, BTW? New editors replying to the template on their own TP? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We could have the bot add all edits to its watchlist and then create an RSS feed for the watchtlist. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For what watchlisting? As I said: many (new) users don't recognize that their talkpages aren't monitored and thus a respond to any template might get unnoticed.

"has made at least 20 edits over at least 3 edit sessions" - How do you determine an edit session?

"to screen for some other log actions" - uuhm? the fist group is not autoconfirmed so with a clean blocklog the user cannot do anything other. And except the blocklog i cannot imagine how to detect "bad faith". Why exclude editors who "have certain warning templates on their talk pages"? What falls under this criteria? Even the username violation isn't an exception since most users aren't aware of these rules. Although I believe that people having a username violating UPOL are normally SPAs...

@Ryan not bad: 'we' could use the watchlist function of the bot and publish the RSS token (if that doesn't violate any wikipedia privacy rule).

mabdul 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that bot welcoming would be just as personal as current Twinkle welcoming, and it doesn't matter if the bot grabs a vandal or two, I have several times. Keep up the good work! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

@Mabdul. I don't know which templates; I don't actually think that we need to perform this level of pre-screening. Just presenting it as something we could do if we had to. The data's there. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 05:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just filed the bot request. Let's see what they say... - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor in need of an invitation

A very inexperienced but good faith editor, User:Jbr1937 has got himself into a bit of a tangle over an article he's trying to rewrite. I left further explanations on his talk page and mentioned the Tea House to him (with a link), but perhaps one of the hosts here could send them a proper invitation? Unfortunately, my main computer is badly on the blink and may be for a while, so my editing time here will be very limited in the next week. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks! heather walls (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's at Wikimania?

Anyone want to meet IRL? Perhaps we can all have lunch together tomorrow. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Let's do it! heather walls (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely! BTW, I'm in the Culture and Community thing; the Wikia people put on a demonstration of a Mediawiki extension that adds message walls; it looks like EXACTLY what the Teahouse needs to solve the top/bottom posting crap, as well as replace half the user scripts we've needed to make. Like, no joke. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is so cool! I hope they get to release some things on Wikipedia as so often it doesn't happen. heather walls (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that's awesome. yes! I'm at Wikimania too, so let's do this =) Sarah (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How about we meet on the terrace outside right by where you pick up food, and then find a spot to go sit from there! Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for you straight past the food lines (Watch your step 'cause the doorway is configured to trip you and me.). DocTree (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously... I nearly choked to death on my muffin this morning when I tripped over that stupid thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Informal lunch meetup at Wikimania 2012

DocTree (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Name names peeps, for those of us not there. NtheP (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can keep this straight. From left to right, Writ Keeper, Jake, Sarah , heather walls, Siko (WMF) and J-Mo. DocTree (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That was awesome :) I look forward to our second annual "Teahouse meetup" in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013. I talked to the organizers and there is going to be an education/workshop track that focuses on educating the public and people interested in becoming project participants (editors, etc). We were thinking about a "real life" Teahouse where people can come with questions, etc. They also have some ideas about tea company sponsors. :) Sarah (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

New hosts

Hi to our new hosts, and welcome to the Teahouse! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I recently moved a few folks to the host breakroom and we have some new hosts. Join me in greeting:

• User:Brambleberry of RiverClan
• User:Bejinhan
• User:GorillaWarfare
• User:Lord Roem
• User:Theopolisme
• User talk:Foxj

Welcome everyone :) Sarah (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, hello! Thanks for the warm welcome, Sarah. Theopolisme _TALK 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

hey, guys (and girls!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to our throng! Now get pouring the tea, sending out invitations and answering questions Your new role starts here. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! benzband (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! Woot! I look forward to all of us working on phase 2 and a huge meetup in Hong Kong ;) heather walls (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello new hosts! Moswento ^talky 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thanks for joining us. -- Trevj (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for joining everybody! You all do great work on the 'pedia, now lets help some newbies do some great work too! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys! Just letting you know that I may not be very active to start, as I am currently tackling a big project (that's a WikiPuma for you, eh?) but I'll be as active as possible, and just ping me on my talk page if you need me to do anything. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 20:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It will be great to see you helping others and working alongside you! @Brambleberry of RiverClan; we understand how important things can take time, so take your time and we hope to see you soon. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brambleberry is surely the first WikiPuma I have met :) PumaHost!!! :D Sarah (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of Brambleberry being known as "PumaHost"! Sounds like a superhero. Maybe we should all have "Teahouse superhero" aliases, with accompanying special powers, costumes and archenemies... Moswento ^talky 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly approve of PumaHost! Yeah, feel free to call me Brambleberry. Bramble, however, sounds a little "prickly". :) WikiPumas aren't very widespread right now, because they're new. I have the feeling, though, that many "WikiDragons" are really more like WikiPumas. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 14:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Glad to be here! -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have you Lord, and let me add my welcome to the others. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A hearty hello to everyone! Great to have you! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have y'all on board! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Bejinhan talks 03:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#More help required please - this time with dealing with bizarre allegations

I've collapsed this topic as the whole SPI is getting very convoluted with Ornaith being blocked, unblocked and blocked again within the space of three hours (first as a sock, second time under a check user block). As I don't see the thread lending anything positive to the Q&A page any more, I've dropped it to a heading only. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hoping that would happen! SarahStierch (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Powerpoint from Teahouse presentation at Wikimania

Hi everyone - here is a link to our Teahouse presentation from Wikimania. I'm not sure when the video will be up, but, this is a start. We also presented a similar version (shorter) to the Wikimedia Foundation to the staff. Some of you might recognize some names :) Thanks for sharing your time and energy to help make the Teahouse possible - we do our best to praise all of the volunteers, we are so grateful. The presentation is here. SarahStierch (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Great presentation, Sarah! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

benzband (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Affirming the wonderfulness of Teahouse

Proof that [some] people think Teahouse is wonderful - I noticed that my wife decided to post a question at the Teahouse rather than asking me when I get home! It made me laugh anyway. TEAHOUSE IS BRILLO! Moswento ^talky 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is awesome and makes me so happy :) #wikilove! SarahStierch (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New editor feedback

Just in case it comes up in any questions there is a new post edit feedback feature being introduced for a sample of new users from next Monday. The feature thanks people for their edits, more details at mw:Post-edit feedback. NtheP (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things for hosts

Hi everyone, a few things I wanted to mention and remind people about:

1. If you see someone answering questions who isn't a host, please invite them to be a host! Please encourage them to add themselves to the Host page, and also read host tips and related guides so they learn "how we roll."
2. Please make sure you are using AS FEW LINKS TO WIKI POLICY ETC as possible. I've noticed, as has others, an increase in linking to policies and guidelines. We aren't here to do that - we're here to gently and politely explain how things work in an easy to understand manner. If people want links - they'll just go to other help spaces and suffer through the painful experience of said links. Please review the host tips for a refresher and Host responsibilities for a gentle reminder on how to be a hostess with the most-ess.

I mention this because it's tough for me to go around and remind everyone "oh hey please don't use lots of wiki speak and links," all the time. And it's up to you - the hosts - to remind each other, and gently remind potential hosts (people answering questions) about how we roll. I take pride in the Teahouse and the further developments during phase two, I also can't maintain every detail of it as my wiki-projects and professional life have me focusing on other things. It takes you to be bold and take control of this space - and keep the Teahouse awesome celebrated space for helping new editors that you have made it. <3 Thanks so much, and keep up the awesome work!!! SarahStierch (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. I have recently been having many exchanges via email with a certain new user who is not only a great writer, but who typically asks to be referred to "official" documentation. In my first response to him, here, the only policy I linked him to was WP:NOTE, but even then I explained what he had to do to meet the requirement (The full conversation is here). As time went on, I realized he would rather read the documentation. All of the emails he has sent me are from a major university, and his signature states that he is Professor Emeritus. I find that he is quite old and mature (being retired), and he does not get lost in the documentation. Is it appropriate to just provide links in this case, as I did in this conversation with the same user?
2. I completely agree that most links to extensive policies can be overwhelming, as they are not only long, but you have to follow more links from that page to fully understand it all. But, I find that there are pages in the Wikipedia namespace, such as WP:42, which are designed for struggling new editors. If a new user's problem is directly related to that, would I to answer in extended prose I would just be copying that page word-for-word. Personally, I think the formatting of that page provides more clarity than a paragraph at the Teahouse can. It is the page that I link new users to the most, by a wide margin, especially at the Help desk and AfC. I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this. Thanks! hajatvrc @ 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tobe honest, I don't like the feel of WP:42, and I don't feel that I would be comfortable refering a new user to that page. It feels like it is telling the reader off and shouting, rather than providing information in an easy to digest format. - Bilby (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I second Bilby about WP:42! I also think that every situation is different - the Teahouse stemmed out of a goal to provide new/ish editors (and any editor with a question) easy to understand answers that do not focus on policy, jargon and stuff that generally makes Wikipedia a pain in the butt to contribute too. That is what has made the Teahouse so successful - and our friendliness! Some editors are attracted to policy and enjoy reading that content. I often will link to policy in my answers, but, I do it AFTER I explain the policy in an easy to understand manner. Therefore I give the questioner an easy to understand response, and I offer them an opportunity to learn more at the policy page if they wish. I hope this helps. SarahStierch (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that is certainly a valid point. I do not think that I would personally read it that way, but I do have pretty thick skin. I see the large letters and highlighting as a way of being absolutely clear of what the essay is about, not shouting per se. The rest of the essay expounds on the highlighted words in, what I would consider, an extremely easy-to-digest format. To me, it validates the use of the highlighting, and the short and simple statement at the top can be seen as a sort of mantra that everyone, even experienced users, should be repeating to themselves when they are creating an article. That is just how I interpret it.

But I do see how a new user, who is not used to the climate, may interpret it as shouting. I guess after a few years as a Wikipedian one tends to get used to shouting, and big highlighted sentences at the top of an essay is nothing compared to the atrocities that one can come across on article talk pages. But new users have not encountered this, and I suppose the Teahouse is the place to protect them while they get used to some of the harshness of certain editors. I will ponder this, and rethink my processes. hajatvrc @ 06:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)