Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Please don't forget to keep tracking your invitations

Hi everyone. I've came across invitations on peoples talk pages but they aren't being tracked in the tracking sheet. Please keep tracking in the tracking sheet until Jonathan gives us the "a-okay" to stop tracking. This is really important for us during the pilot. You can find the link here. Thanks everyone!! Sarah (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And it isn't gonna get any better for the next few weeks

Given my recent activity levels, and my belief that it won't get any better until at least June (and then I'm out for much of July again), I think it might be best if I go ahead and turn in my badge now. I've enjoyed this, and I hope I've helped in some way, but I don't think its fair to guests, other hosts or myself to try to continue when I have absolutely no time for this right now. I'm extremely sorry that I couldn't finish out the original time period, but I hope that the influx of new hosts makes up for that. I sincerely hope that the Teahouse stands WP on its head (or at least gets it dizzy), and that I can participate again later. :) Cheers to all, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Badges? BADGES? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BADGES! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely knew that someone was gonna say this. Thanks Writ, it made my day. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(You can stay a host, I'll just take you out of the featured rotation. Let us know if you want back in, and good luck with everything! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? (^____^) Your gifts to Wikipedia are worth more than treasures (and badges ;) ~ 'The Future Is Unwritten' who knows the day will come when time is once more bestowed upon you… Cheers to you too, benzband (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Come on back any time, Nole. We'll be here! Hang on to the badge, though. Perhaps you can use it to win friends and influence people out in the real world. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all :) Hope to be back quickly. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be less active for a while

Hi, there. As you may have noticed, I've not been active around here recently. I have exams coming up, which means I'm spending less time on Wikipedia at the moment. I'll probably not be very active here for a little while until my exams finish in mid-June. Thanks for understanding. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Zippy! And good luck with those exams. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Including wikilink note within Wikipedia:Teahouse/Intro at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions includes Wikipedia:Teahouse/Intro, with the text

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

I've observed that new editors don't always know how to wikilink to the articles they're referring to. Therefore, could we consider amending the above text to include a brief explanation of how to do this? E.g.

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! (If appropriate to your question, please link to a specific article using square brackets, i.e. [[article title]].) And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

There's probably scope for a more concise wording, so if anyone thinks this would be a good idea to save a few seconds when responding, can you improve on the above? -- Trevj (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me--Charles (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Good idea, also, because it avoids having to look through the editor's contribs and so on. benzband (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done[1] -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright template for new users

Most of you probably already know about this, but just in case... There's a special template for copyright violation that is especially designed for new editors. It's Template:Uw-copyright-new. Much more friendly and less scary than the standard Template:Uw-copyright, its main purpose is to educate rather than castigate and contains useful links and simple "nutshell" explanations. Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent direction for notices to move in (less scary), thanks for the heads-up, Voceditenore. heather walls (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Signposted!

In case you missed the announcement... The Teahouse featured in The Signpost on Monday 14th May - read it here. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 02:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Close but a week out - the link is actually this one :-) NtheP (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
hah. Thanks. While I'm here, I also want to call out Rcsprinter123, who 'conducted' the interview. Thanks for initiating this, and for pitching us all softball questions and making us look good! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is great! Hopefully it will provide more attention to us and potentially get his a few new hosts. --Nathan2055talk 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Return of the "Ask a question" question

Mabdul brought up the comment about the "Ask a question" link again on IRC. He has hacked the button to find the source and it still seems to run on complete JS, not HTML/CSS like mentioned in a previous comment. He's also upset about the ordering of new questions at the top instead of the bottom. I'm starting to agree about the ordering thing and JS should have been removed months ago. What's everyone else's opinion? Thanks, Nathan2055talk 16:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I can't talk regarding the JS/HTML/CSS but it's been working great since it was fixed, again, back? I think to JS. I also like the questions at the top. It fits with the mission and style of the Teahouse and most of the hosts and return customers are used to that layout. Questions that go to the bottom rarely are answered, anyway, since we are so used to this. It's fresh, it's new and it's easy - I say keep :) Sarah (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see some evidence that asking questions at the top is causing any problems elsewhere, otherwise the only significant issue is that it's different from most of the rest of WP (most not all, AFD for example new entries go at the top). NtheP (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "JS should have been removed months ago"? This gadget was specially made for us. We have discussed the order issue many times and it seems like most hosts came to the conclusion that the message order is more helpful than anything else. I support it strongly as most new users are confused enough by the strangeness of Wikipedia as it is. heather walls (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It never was purported to anything but JS. And the source is at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js, it's not like it's obfuscated or anything. The point is that we added a fallback for someone who doesn't have JS so that it just behaves as if they clicked a "New section" tab. Given that, I don't see what the problem with having JS is. I'm inclined to agree with you about the bottom-posting vs. the top-posting, but at the end of the day, I don't see why it's a big deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly support for top-posting, as usual. This was a designed-in feature of Teahouse, and I would very much like to see it stick around unless we find that there are major usability issues, or other serious compatibility issues that cannot be fixed without disabling the widget entirely. The fact that it's a different paradigm from other pages on Wikipedia is not, in my view, sufficient grounds for removing the functionality; the Teahouse Q&A board is supposed to be different from other pages on Wikipedia.
On a (slightly) related tack, I've added new functionality to HostBot: it will now automatically update the "recent questions" box on the front page with questions asked within the last four days. It also updates the link to the recent question, though in (hopefully rare) cases where that question has already been archived the link will just default to the top of Teahouse/Questions, which isn't a terrible thing. I plan to automate "Featured Guests" soon as well, but I want to make sure it's working properly first. So ping me you see something go pear-shaped. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I fully understand and like the top-posting thing, but I'm still unsure about this JS business. While I love the functionality of the JS box, I can understand mabdul's desire to have this changed, though. --Nathan2055talk 00:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to implement top-posting without JS. I looked into this and wracked my brain for a while, and couldn't figure out how to do it. I believe the "new section to bottom" functionality is baked-in to MediaWiki. But I'd actually love to be proven wrong here! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I just tested Kaldari's non-JS fallback option. Seems to be working well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=492444855&oldid=492415562 - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
@J-Mo err yes and no. It's a mess: fall back placing at the bottom, non fall back is placing at the top... bugzilla:31919 might help (Please !vote! We need it for AfC). mabdul 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Checked out the link, but can't how it applies to this issue yet. I'll give it a deeper look later. Meantime, I guess I'm just hoping that most people have JavaScript enabled in their browsers, and hence never have to see the fallback option at all. :) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Revive - I just had an interesting idea. I wonder if we could rig HostBot to automatically detect and move up questions added using the CSS fallback? --Nathan2055talk 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's possible, but I'd have to do some digging to figure out how. Any idea how often questions are added through the CSS fallback? If it's only once in a blue moon, it's probably not worthwhile to develop an automated solution. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Checked out mabdul's bugzilla report, hopefully if a switch is added to add to the top of the page, we won't need a HostBot process in the first place. --Nathan2055talk 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Fingers are crossed... - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 04:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Two new Teahouse surveys going out today

Hi all, I am sending out two Teahouse surveys today, one geared towards newer Wikipedians who have visited the Teahouse and one for Teahouse hosts (and also for veteran Wikipedians who don't identify themselves as hosts, but who have participated in Teahouse during the pilot period). These surveys contain slightly different questions in order to help us understand the Teahouse experience from both the newcomer and the veteran perspectives.

You should all receive a survey invitation on your talk page. Let me know if you don't! Most of you will receive a link to the 'Veterans' survey, but if either of the following criteria are true, then you may receive a 'Guests' survey instead:

  • your account was created after December 31st, 2011, or
  • you had made fewer than 100 edits on that account prior to your first edit to Teahouse/Questions or Teahouse/Guests

These were the basic criteria I used to separate newcomers from veterans, for ease of sampling. However, if you are reading this and you received a 'Guests' survey but like to take the 'Veterans' survey (for instance, if you started out as a Teahouse guest but went on to become a host!), let me know and I'll send you a link to the 'Veterans' survey. If you started as a guest and subsequently moved into a host role, feel free to take both surveys if you want, but please indicate in your answers to the final question on each survey that you are taking both surveys. This is just to help us keep track of special cases: the surveys are anonymous, and your personal info will remain confidential unless you choose to disclose it in your answers.

We look forward to your feedback! Survey responses will be posted on the metrics page in the coming weeks. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the updates Jonathan! Sarah (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I completed the survey, Jonathan. Thanks for soliciting our opinions! I also want to say that I can't believe that these initial weeks have passed so fast! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Tempus fugit, for sure. Thanks for your myriad contributions, Rosie--to Teahouse and survey alike! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 04:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New metrics, thoughts and praise

Hi everyone,

I just published the latest report on the metrics page. I wanted to pull out a few items of interest:

  • We did a lot of analysis on retention this time around, in much greater detail than we have in previous reports. Basically, we found that Teahouse visitors tend to stick around Wikipedia longer than new editors who didn't visit, and that they contribute more content more frequently. This is an awesome result, and no other projects (whether community or WMF-driven) that I'm aware of can boast this kind of positive impact. Granted, 1) this is still an early result, and we don't know what these editors will be doing months from now and 2) many other successful projects haven't tracked their impact in this way. But still, wow. I mean check out those numbers.
  • Average response times are phenomenally fast. First response comes a mean of 1.5 hours after question is asked. Median response time (which excludes a few very fast and very slow responses) is 30 minutes! I thought you only saw that kind of response time in edit wars.
  • Most visitors to Teahouse come in response to an invitation. So your tireless work inviting people is paying off. And our retention results suggest that by inviting these users to come visit Teahouse early on, we're keeping a good number of quality contributors on Wikipedia who would otherwise get bored or frustrated and quit sooner.
  • This is all due to the kind of support you're offering on the Q&A page, and your dedication to inviting new editors to the Teahouse. The responses on the Q&A board are congenial, helpful and thorough as they've always been.

I'll be putting together an even bigger analysis of Teahouse activity, engagement and retention impact in a few weeks. Any information you especially want to see there? I'm taking requests! Cheers - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we make any statistically dubious claims it should be pointed out that editors who are interested enough to come here may just be those who would tend to stay around anyway. That does not detract in any way from the value of the project.--Charles (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
What's dubious? We're reporting that Teahouse visitors tend to stay around longer on average. This isn't a randomized controlled trial (nor was meant to be) and I've added caveats to that effect, but if you think I'm not clarifying the parameters of my analysis sufficiently I guess I could add more caveats. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
What's dubious is your use of the term "positive impact". You can't claim the Teahouse had any kind of "impact" based on these data (unless you have done something clever with the data). After all, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, it's good to know the Teahouse attracts editors who end up sticking around for longer. Mlm42 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What I actually wrote is "this week's confirmatory findings (coupled with the other subsequent editing activity data presented directly above) provides additional evidence that Teahouse is having a positive impact on retention". I'm claiming evidence, not proof. There's nothing dubious about it. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay.. but the testimony of a single person is also considered "evidence" that the Teahouse is working.. my point is that if you are careful with your control group, you could be providing "strong and convincing evidence". Mlm42 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
More specifically, it's not clear why the editors in Control group A didn't receive an invite.. maybe they had some quality which made it less likely they would get an invite, and maybe that quality also makes them less likely to make further edits. Mlm42 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Mlm42, I am going to go back and check, but I am fairly certain that the earlier information explains that these users who didn't receive an invite were the control group--selected for the same characteristics as the people who were invited--but were not invited because they were the control group. heather walls (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Aha, I did not know there was a control group.--Charles (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Heather's got it right. I've been gathering data on a set of control editors who met the criteria for invitation (such as 10 edits in 1st 24 hours + not blocked), but whose names I intentionally left off the report. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I misunderstood the description. It sounded to me like the "control group" may have been chosen afterwards, as a set of editors who qualified, but weren't invited by anyone, and didn't otherwise find their way to the Teahouse. In other words, it's important when the control group was chosen.. before or after the other invites were given out? If it was before, then I would have expected other hosts to invite some of them, even though you had already chosen them as a "control".. but you don't mention that happening, which is the reason for my concern. Does that make sense? Mlm42 (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Good observation. Control group A was identified at the same time as the other groups. I just intentionally left their names off the report. So, if there are 100 new editors who meet the requirements for inclusion in the daily report, I only list 70 of them on the invitee report. The other 30 go into my control group. I remove them from my analysis if I see that they subsequently got invited anyway, through some other channel (new editor contribs, AfC, whatever). - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In response to bullet point 3, have users been asked "if you hadn't received help at/been invited to the Teahouse, would you still be contributing to Wikipedia?" That strikes me as being a useful toll to assessing how the Teahouse has helped smooth the initial hump in the WP learning curve. NtheP (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice. I'm going to run another survey of Teahouse visitors within the next two weeks. That's a natural question to include. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If I can play the devil's advocate a little bit more, another natural question is whether a Teahouse invitation is better than any interaction from other editors.. like a generic welcome message. Because maybe any welcoming interaction from other editors makes a new user more likely to stick around. Mlm42 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. Any of the sets of users may also have had a welcome template added to them by other editors. J-Mo, is there any way for you to track whether they have one or not? (We could just look). Most of them seem to have one already when I invite people, and current theories suggest that the welcome templates as they exist today are not encouraging retention. heather walls (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There's actually been a lot of research recently on the relative impact of different kinds of welcome (and warning) messages on subsequent activity levels. The bottom line is that the kind of message you get matters, but there are a lot of different variables: such as the tone of the message, how simple or complex it is, and whether it's generic or personalized. What I take from this research is that the best templates will be simple, friendly in tone, and personalized. We designed the Teahouse template according to this model (although because of the high volume of templates we need to send, their not as personalized as they could be). There's also been some groovy academic research around this question over the last few years, such as this study.
Sorry for the long delay, BTW. I'm traveling this week and haven't been able to keep up communications. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
In response to bullet point 2 → what about the WP:Help Desk? :-) benzband (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we're faster. I want to pull #s on this though, to confirm my suspicion. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now let's play the advocatus diaboli (*evil chuckle* ~ please correct any factual errors)

"I think an invitation to edit would have been nice […]"

[2] → good reason to add a standard welcome as well the Teahouse one.
A fair point. But there's already a welcome template (and a committee), who reach out to a lot of new editors that way. We tried to get a Teahouse link on that template... buuuut that may have to wait a while. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
My (fool-proof?) method is to add both, but then i only operate on a small scale… :P benzband (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"[…] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an invitation to social networking seems a bit weird."

→ see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (and Wikipedia:Social networking for a more extreme essay). The "guests" and "hosts" pages could easily be seen as "profiles" (

Tell us all a bit about yourself: what are you interests? What do you do for fun?

).
yeah, no disrespect Mr. advocate-to-the-MorningStar, Esq. but I'm kind of over this argument ;) If giving people a simple mechanism for introducing themselves as people on Wikipedia means that we're Facebook, then I want stock options! Now, I've got to get back to working on that 'like' button script I'm writing... - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like We have popularity "stock" options… although you currently have very few (compared to Jimbo ;) benzband (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, rub it in. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"[…] Getting told, by a \"host,\" that my comments, due to extreme frustration with bad information on Wikipedia, were \"mean.\" "

Badges! Also a reminder that "hosts" have no more authority than any other Wikipedian.
I'm pretty sure I know the editor who left this comment (from contextual cues, not PII collected with the survey), though I myself did not call them any names. If I'm correct in my surmise, I don't feel super sympathetic. If I'm wrong, then I'm baffled that this happened. But I'm sorry that it did. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know the context, yeah… but my point here is Wikipedia:Equality. benzband (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

true. I/we are no better and possess no more intrinsic authority than any other editor. But a flame, a nasty comment, or an ad hominem attack is still "mean", and anyone is free to call it out as such. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

claiming evidence, not proof

→ aren't all these metrics meant to prove to WMF that the Teahouse works (and is worthwhile)? benzband (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Pfui, proofs are for mathematicians! :) The metrics I've reported so far are small scale, and are indeed intended to be evidence (though certainly tantalizing evidence). I'll have bigger, badder, more evidential numbers soon, but even that won't be proof: even if I can show that Teahouse guests edit more and better 1 or 2 months out, that doesn't say that they will be there in a year. And frankly, I don't think that WMF (and Wikipedia) should wait around a year for the proof to come in: we're in an editor decline! Last I checked our editor numbers were back down to around early 2006 levels, and dropping. What we need, and what I'm hoping to provide, is compelling evidence that this strategy works better than a) no strategy and/or b) strategies that work well on a small scale (i.e. mentorship, adopt-a-user), but require too much overhead operate at the scale necessary to bring in the number of new editors we need to stabilize. As for my methods, I actually have ethical qualms with performing the kind of random assignment necessary for a traditional experimental control: it's not fair to the editors who are volunteering their time to invite people, and it's not fair to the new editors themselves. I already feel kind of guilty for having a concocted control group of any sort... but at least we're not withholding invites from people who we know to be GF newbies in need. Thoughts? - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed when i saw the size of some metrics (75 users) my first reaction was: "are these representative?". On the whole i don't think that a measuring frenzy has much point… a) what do all these measurements actually mean? b) what difference does it make? How about measuring the size of newbies computer screens (after all, this may have tremendous impact on their stay, especially if they have poor eyesight). And BTW, metre-ics sounds very much up math's street to me… ^^ benzband (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Well, the 75 users are indeed representative, or at least they're a mostly random sub-sample of Teahouse guests/invitees/non-invitees. As for what the measurements mean, I'm not sure I follow: they mean that it looks as though participating in the Teahouse has a positive effect on retention, activity level and contribution quality for very new editors. Does it seem to you that measuring subsequent activity is as arbitrary as measuring screen size, or that it is irrelevant to the goal of increasing new editor retention? - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question(s) directly a] the screens biz wasn't arbitrary and b] measuring doesn't actually change the amount of teahouse traffic and subsequent activity (or does it? in which case i figure i could get rich with a ruler ;) ~ Maybe "illustrates" would be a more appropriate word, as in "it looks as though". Cheers for your work anyhow, benzband (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please keep inviting - but you don't have to track on the spreadsheet at this time

Hi everyone! J-mo just gave me the go ahead that we don't have to track invitations on the spreadsheet at this time. But please keep inviting users utilizing the tools provided in the invite guide we developed. Thanks folks! Sarah (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice! This will speed up my inviting and get more people to the Teahouse. Keep up the good work, all! --Nathan2055talk 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
↑ this. benzband (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, does this mean invites can be substituted? benzband (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather folks continue to transclude the template. I plan to build a little 'invite counter' next week for the hosts lounge to help us keep track of how many invites are being sent out out every week. This counter would be updated daily by HostBot. But this counter will only work if the templates are transcluded: substituted templates are essentially invisible from the 'back end'. Since invitations are so important to getting newcomers in the door, I think it's worthwhile to keep tabs on whether or not they're being sent out at a reasonable clip. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Why would you want to substitute invitations in particular anyway? Aside from the server issue, and there just aren't that many invitations: (See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.) There is a message parameter for customizing what you want to say. Is there another reason? heather walls (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Accessing the source code helps understand how Wikipedia works. The receiver of said invite might not (yet) know about Wikipedia:Templates. benzband (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I see! Honestly it seems like a pretty big jump (to me) for most of the people we are inviting to dive into the source code of things on their talk page, and I would argue that they'll get plenty of chances. Thanks for the explanation. heather walls (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My reaction is something along the lines of: "Hey, that looks good!" followed by "How does it work?" followed by "Let's see if i can i do that myself!" ~ even if this doesn't necessarily mean success :-P Also, i think it's for this reason that welcome templates leave a <!-- html comment --> once substituded that indicates where they come from. Cheers, benzband (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
We could totally add a note. heather walls (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Question on inviting guests

Should you only invite users who appear at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports or would it be appropriate to scan this for editors? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Woops, I stopped reading too early. It allows that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another opportunity to help

see Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Another opportunity to help. [benzband (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)]

500th question!

Celebrate good times, c'mon!

Hi everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we passed 500 questions on the Q&A board this morning. Woo hoo!!!! Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! heather walls (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's super awesome. I won't hold it against you that you used Kool & the Gang in the caption. ;) Great news, thank J-mo and go Teahouse! Sarah (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriouse Question - Do we need a page Wikipedia For Dummies and links to the teahouse

Sorry if this Hound is barking up the wrong tree, but as a newbie editor I keep getting lost in the Wiki labyrinth. Give me a Minotaur to wrestle with any day.

I do think it odd that as the "Dummies" brand is so well known there is no play on the idea to the advantage of Wikipedia - and in particular anyone who would google or look up "Wikipedia For Dummies. It could be a great way to pick up on novice editors - and others in need of signposting - who are Web/IT literate and get the joke!

It seems like a simple and effective way of promoting the Teahouse and even getting it Google listed. It's an old advertising trick "Piggy backing" on others, but it is effective.

It's so simple for someone to either search Wikipedia or Goggle for Wikipedia For Dummies and get signposted easily and readily!

Is this hound barking up the wrong tree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been playing and having some fun. Hope folks get my Ironic sense of humour!

Wikipedia for dummies - It will most likely not be published due to copyright issues ... mores the pity! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The role of "Wikipedia for dummies" is filled by User:MichaelQSchmidt's excellent Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. It is worth considering whether to create a redirect to that from Wikipedia for dummies.
The argument against is the general principle that readers of the encyclopedia should not need to be aware of the behind-the-scenes workings, so that cross-namespace redirects (CNRs) from the main space are discouraged. WP:Cross-namespace redirects says: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia: (project) namespace should be deleted... CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around."
I am inclined to agree with that view, and to think that a prominent link to WP:PRIMER from the Teahouse would be enough. What does anyone else think? JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers is valuable. My point is that when wiki users are exasperated - fed up - wondering what to do next.... they type in all sorts of things Wikipedia for dummies, "Fuck it, "Help me, what do I do, ... and many others - and there is no clear answer to those. It would be something if there was a response that acknowledged the exasperation and even made people laugh! Not all Wiki users are highly technically literate - and that is an issue that could well be keeping some fine editors away. I get the technical arguments around avoiding WP:Cross-namespace redirects - but this would fill in the gaps and help to act as a safety net. People are walking around the building lost and looking for help. It's not perefect - and Wiki Land will never be perfect either. WP:IAR -"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored.".
I think we desperately need new help content on Wikipedia. I don't think the primer is enough. I also get embarrassed reading anything - alone or privately - called "(Insert whatever) for Dummies," but i catch your drift :) I know that The_wub is examining current and hoping to develop more accessible and easier to understand help devices on Wikipedia. Perhaps he's worth dropping by and asking? The point of the Teahouse is to provide peer to peer support by explaining things - three things we're famous for: saying hello to each user who visits us (never forget the greeting in a new place), inviting people to visit us (it makes them feel special and they are!) and explaining things without linking to wordy Wikipedia jargon. I think developing a new help device like you two are referring too is related to this, but, not the same as the Teahouse. IMHO, we should just continue doing what we do best (see WP:Teahouse/Your hosts to learn more) and if new editors are specifically stating they need a better help device through the Teahouse we can consider that option. The Teahouse provides peer to peer not additional overwhelming links to other tools on Wikipedia, so to say. We explain things out - we explain what policies are instead of linking to them. SO far, it's working well. But, perhaps I'm in the wrong here... Sarah (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Sarah - thanks for the heads up on The Wub. ... and I agree that the Teahouse is doing fine and is above else a brilliant piece of Wiki Art. The Teahouse has a remit under the pantheon of help and it does exactly what it says. I have to say, that in my short time in Wiki land it is the best resource I have found..... and I have looked! P^) I just find it amusing and ironic that when people get frustrated and put in search terms in the hope of help - well, they just get more Wikiness rather than a sign post. I do believe that laughter is a great tool for engaging with people. We'll see what happens! Cheers! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My sentiments are the same as Sarah's. Perhaps Wikipedia for dummies, "Fuck it, "Help me, what do I do etc should all be redirects to a page which is nothing but links to the various support forums/methods that exist - a brief description of each one e.g. human interaction, Q&A page and what their specialism is (if there is one). NtheP (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever read a "Dummies" book? It may start off simple but it can get tough pretty quickly ;) benzband (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That might not be such a bad idea. What do I do was searched for 33 times this year. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
By 33 Teahouse hosts? (^_____^) benzband (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say - I would love to see the stats on different search terms to see exactly what people are doing when they are Stuck! I do get the Wry humour (Which is quite necessary at times), but actually the situation is very serious! (IMHO).

I have had a most "amusing"(?) experience today - .... and it aint over yet!

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP welcoming and Teahouse invitations, a question.

Hi fabulous hosts! I have noticed that sometimes I end up on a user's talk page intending to give them a Teahouse invitation and I find that a host has already welcomed them to Wikipedia but not also invited them to the Teahouse. I am curious why this might be the case. Is there some reason to not invite people to the Teahouse when you welcome them? I am super curious, thanks!

Also, I am so impressed by all of your quick and friendly answers on the Q&A page, great job! heather walls (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If that was me, then you might have caught me mid-edit. I'm working on fixing this, but right now I have to preform two edits (a welcome, and a TH) to get both templates on there. This should be fixed with a new template I'm building soon. --Nathan2055talk 15:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's because we want to avoid overwhelming the newbie. I leave lots (hundreds) of Invites on talkpages after someone's Welcome. and figure that different days, different messages won't be construed as overwhelming. There's also been discussion about including the Teahouse Invite on welcome templates but, as far as I know, that is still in the "discussion" phase; BTW, does anyone have an update? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
'sfar as I know discussion of whether a Teahouse link belongs on the welcome template hasn't progressed since this thread. There was strong support and strong opposition, and no consensus to speak of, at the time. Folks who objected to the link felt as though we should have consulted more Wikipedians before adding it in. They also expressed other concerns, the most salient of which was that Teahouse is/was raw & untested. I'm not sure whether those who opposed inclusion in April will feel different in May... but it's worth bringing up again (probably best if done by someone who wasn't a primary pugilist in the first debate... so IOW not me or Sarah :) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As we're hoping to have the pilot report finished in early June (hosts - we'll be bugging you for help and input on that soon too!!), maybe that would be a good time for anyone interested to jump-start the welcome template conversation again, since we'll have info to address the concern about Teahouse being untested then? I can post an update in that thread once the report is out, but I think folks like Nathan and Rosie who use both templates regularly would probably have a lot to contribute to that conversation. Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: see the talkpage of Template talk:Welcome#…on the Teahouse welcome issue. benzband (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow Ben. Great work! :D Sarah (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Excellent!! heather walls (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a copy-paste of {{welcome}} really. Now that Twinkle is running again you enable this template like this:

Matters arising

Coming out of the above and the point about too many answers to a question. If it's directly related to the question posed I don't think more than one answer is wrong as long as they add to the overall answer. But perhaps what we should try and avoid is hosts debating the merits of suggestions on the Q page like this example. There's nothing wrong with the debate but this wasn't the place to have it as it wasn't a direct response to the original question (or in this case statement)? NtheP (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. It gets too bickery when people start going back and forth on who's response is better or the best methodology. Wikipedia often has many ways of doing things (i.e. "with a bot or without a bot,") and there is nothing wrong with that. I expect J-mo to correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't believe new editors have felt overwhelmed or unhappy with getting multiple responses. As long as the responses remain to the point and easy to understand, then that's no big deal. Also, I rarely get edit conflicts anymore, so go figure. Perhaps I work on the Teahouse during an off time. Sarah (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Those who participate in answering Q's but aren't hosts

Hi everyone. A number of you wrote about concerns when non-Hosts respond to questions. I had some issues with this at the beginning of the pilot, and had to really work through ways on how to handle it. Eventually, I just started writing grateful yet informing comments on the talk pages of those editors who participated a few times and didn't quite do it in "Teahouse way" (i.e. saying hi, being friendly, actually answering the new editor's question rather than doing things for them). Even if I don't always agree with someone's methodology, I do invite them to read the your hosts page and the host tips page. You can see one of my recent examples here. I've noticed only myself and Heather doing the same. All I can do is advise you to do this too, and be kind and gentle (even cut and paste my version if you want). Unless you guys have better options! I failed with sternness (it got bad responses bad which were actually hurting my feelings, LOL) and failed with a template we created, so..this has worked out best. It's a Wiki, anyone can edit, so, be bold! But, remember - it's also good to encourage new editor's to help each other out, which I see frequently. If people are answering in the "Teahouse style" I don't let it get to me, and eventually I invite the to just straight up be a host! Hope this helps a bit. Sarah (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel a twinge of conscience as a non-host reading this, because I must admit that I had thought of the Teahouse as Helpdesk 2.0 - like Helpdesk but with much more use of the word "awesome" - and have a couple of times added an answer to a question that caught my eye. I now understand rather better but, as the general Wikipedia ethos is that anybody reads anything and comments if they have something to say, you should perhaps warn casual rubberneckers that the Teahouse is different. I'm not sure how to do that tactfully - perhaps an editnotice on the Questions page, so that it would be seen by anyone about to comment, but not by readers. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitations

I'm curious to know if we are continuing to invite enough new editors, or has word gotten out about the Teahouse so that invitations aren't as needed as they used to be? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno the answer to this, but do know that I've personally been inviting next to no one. Sorry - I really need to investigate the scripts which ISTR should simplify this. -- Trevj (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ben also just created Template:Welcome-t so perhaps that might help :) I added it to my custom Twinkle welcome and use it all the time (And soemtimes double it up with the official Teahouse welcome) Sarah (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive index

In it's current state i don't think many will grasp the fact that to access the Q&A index they have to click on "Archives" (on the archive box). benzband (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think a separate more obvious link (styled to match the page) would help? I could add one. heather walls (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. If you can do this, then that would be great. benzband (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It'd be more obvious if not set to auto-collapse IMHO (perhaps OK until it grows even larger, I guess). -- Trevj (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Really Dumb Questions?

Spotted this over at Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Quickstart_guide

"Have a read of what they say, if you're not sure, ask dumb questions at the help desk, or really dumb questions at the Tea house, or ask if something is actually correct at the Reference desk."

Not sure if it has the "Correct" and even "Neutral" tone that helps people grasp the Teahouse? Sounds like it was written by someone who has a bias to the Ref Desk?

The only stupid question is the one you don't ask. - and the way it it phrased makes people have to asses if they are Dumb or Not - and so encourages them to NOT ask questions - especially at the Teahouse.

To paraphrase Pretty Woman - "I have to go referencing". P^) TTFN Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well this is the diff that introduced that wording so if someone wants to have words with the author. But yes I agree with you, it's a bit of "whack-a-newbie" wording that should be changed. NtheP (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Penyulap meant it in the sense of "you're allowed to ask questions that seem stupid", rather than "you are stupid for wanting to ask a question" (i.e. it wasn't intended to be a slight on the Teahouse). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I've reworded. WormTT(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"whack-a-newbie" - What? A red link? P^0 Someone is slipping!
Good on you Worm - it does read betterer! P^)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to take the credit but another editor or two worked on the page after me... and made it look a lot better! WormTT(talk) 17:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Host Lounge - Your feedback is needed!

Hi everyone! We are in the process of developing a reflection about what worked and what didn't work regarding Host resources during the Teahouse pilot. Soon we will be garnering your feedback in a broader sense about the future of the Teahouse, but, right now, I'd love to get your feedback about what worked and what didn't, what you used and what you didn't use, and the value and lack of you found in the Teahouse Lounge and Teahouse systems in general.

It'd be great to have your feedback about anything and everything listed here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge and anything else that pops into your mind.

Please keep in mind that Teahouse Hosts during the pilot period were asked to do certain tasks (i.e. track invitations), and I know not everyone was able to participate in those aspects, but, you're input is valuable regardless! Thanks folks :)

Sarah (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I think Teahouse is a wonderful way for new and inexperienced editors to get involved in Wikipedia while making friends with both hosts and other editors alike. Questions are answered quickly and thoroughly and most of the time the editors find the information extremely helpful. I often get the dreaded edit conflict notice.
One thing that I think will make answering questions much easier is if we create subcategories for questions like vandalism, referencing & sources, notability, etc. I think it would help hosts who specialize in a certain area of Wikipedia answer questions faster and more efficient. -- Luke (Talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Sarah, thanks for asking for my input. I tried, early on, to do invitations and track the progress using the Googledocs Spreadsheet. The problem was that this became drudgery for me. It seems like a task like this could be semi-automated and would work better; if semi-automated processes can generate the report for editors that qualify for an invite (50 edits or something like that?), then the same processes could deliver the invite and track if the person so invited later edited the Teahouse Questions page. Since we're just dropping the equivalent of a formletter on people's page anyways, does it really matter if I or a bot drops that form letter? I'm not sure there's much of a difference who leaves the standardized template, and who tracks the data, so why not use technology to make it better, so we can focus on responding to question. I think, from my point of view, the actual opperation of the question page has been a roarding success. I really think that the ethos we have established, being warm, inviting, addressing people by name, taking time to work with people has been wonderful, so anything we do to give people more time to do that, and less time spent on mindless stuff a bot could do, would be better. Also, as an aside, I know this is a losing battle, but the "new threads on top" thing is still a bad idea, but I know that people who are more important than me have decided that it will go that way, so I guess we are stuck with it. Still feel the need to lodge my standing complaint on that one. But otherwise, loving it! Keep up the good work! --Jayron32 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi all, I have and still do thoroughly enjoy helping out here. Part of the challenge is to stay focused and positive when writing the umpteenth "your article at AFC isn't notable/is spam/needs reliable sources" and ensure that I'm not always repeating myself :-) I agree with Jayron about the tracking spreadsheet - it was probably the reason I'd didn't issue more invites. I don't think we need more rigourously defined criteria, some invites I issued were to people with only 2-3 edits, as long as they looked to be constructive I issued an invite. I don't think splitting the page into sub categories would help as questions wouldn't get put in the right place anyway and besides I like reading (and answering) the variety, whether it's technical or policy or just plain weird!
The ethos we have I think is great, perhaps we need to be a bit more firm with some other established editors who have come in a bit less "pink and fluffy" than we might have liked. Just a gentle reminder this isn't an RTFM page.
The other big plus for me has been how much I've learned either from others answers or in researching answers myself. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall, I enjoyed helping out as a Teahouse host. That said, it became troubling at times to see the project become Helpdesk 2.0. Questions were being answered by individuals that were not hosts and at times either subtly or overtly appeared to be undermining the goals of the nicer, friendlier assistance and environment that we were going trying to accomplish. I would see some editors answering questions, then badmouthing the project on talkpages. I was puzzled as to why they were even around the Teahouse in the first place. Speaking for myself, I found the many edit conflicts to be frustrating. I was also dismayed when one question presented by a new editor would be answered by several different editors. The place was overrun with different points of view. New editors really don't need the additional confusion. I became convinced that my time would best be served by focusing on searching for and inviting new editors, as well as following up with those that had visited previously. In the end, my efforts in this regard appeared to be overlooked. I'm not one to need kudos or pats on the back. And I really don't look for recognition. That said, I was kinda left shrugging my shoulders, feeling like my help wasn't actually needed. Overall, I would recommend a bit more organization and vetting of individuals participating as helpers or hosts. I don't think the program benefited from everybody and their dog participating all at once. It just became chaos, which diminished my desire to stay around or check in on a regular basis. I truly believe that the Teahouse project can be a catalyst for retaining new editors. Just needs some tweaking and fine tuning. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 22:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Teahouse is a great, warm environment for both hosts and new editors. However, as Cindy said, the Teahouse does become Help Desk 2.0. Even one of the new editors asked if the Teahouse was just the Help Desk. Many new editors end up refusing to go to the Teahouse and it seems the hosts' work is not appreciated. But overall, the Teahouse is great! It was a good thing to create it. Just some more improvement and the Teahouse can be much better! Cheers, Rosalina2427 (Talk) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel proud to be associated with the Teahouse pilot project; talk page comments from new editors abound with notes about how they appreciate the service provided. If just one of those folks becomes prolific as a result of the Teahouse encounter, then job well done here. My favorite part was (gasp!) inviting new users. I like watching TV while inviting new users; it's a twist on watching TV and welcoming new users, something else that I'm fond of doing. Tracking the invites was a chore as every extra key stroke dealing with tracking details kept me from inviting one more new editor. I'll say one more time that I really don't like emailing editors. As for answering questions, I, too, got smuffled with edit conflicts; and I wasn't sure that the new user needed my answer after someone else beat me to it. I did learn a lot by reading the answers left by others. I never noticed my profile shuffle up as one of the host examples, though it might have happened when I wasn't looking. I wondered if I'd get a Teahouse barnstar before the pilot was over. I appreciate being in an environment that's generally positive as some other areas of wikipedia are beset with various degrees of negativity. I "met" some really nice people. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think as long as things don't become Help Desk 2.0 - this has a lot of great potential. One opportunity I'd like to see explored more is either a revised Teahouse that covers non-enWP wikis or a second one that focuses on non-enWP projects. Ideally opening it up to 3rd party wikis as well. --Varnent (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have made it very well known that I love the concept of the Teahouse; something in between IRC and longer term 1-to-1's (like adoption) was missing outside the (sometimes unreliable) help desks. I think the Teahouse is sort of self-explanatory, and I see that as people learn about the Teahouse it quickly seems to integrate itself into the overall WP culture. I don't think there need to be any major fundamental changes, although there are some cosmetic changes that others have specified better than I could. At this point, I think we should just be looking for ways to increase efficiency. We have all those host-written guides that I rarely saw linked to, or guest pages that didn't seem to do anything. Anyway, y'all will do fine. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    I've got to say, I love the Teahouse - the atmosphere here is very friendly and it's great to see so many users helping out. However, I do get the impression that it's only a fad - and I'm sorry to say that. At the moment, it's got foundation backing and lots of help from Sarah, and that's boosted it up high, but besides the friendly atmosphere, I'm not certain it's giving editors anything that they don't get elsewhere. (Q&A - Helpdesk, IRC, Adopt and so on...) That leaves a forced "talkback", which I believe would be better added by an automated process (similarly with the Googledoc), and host and guest profiles. The profiles are quite good, and I've seen them used in Ambassador programs to add a more human side, but they're not really that used. (~9000 hits last month on the Question page, ~500 on the host profile, ~1000 on the guest profile). Overall, a great concept - I intend to keep helping out here, but I don't think it's the solution to the drop in contributors. WormTT(talk) 18:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have mentioned before and I will state again that I think the Teahouse is the best thing I have seen happen to the encyclopedia since I started editing. The data has proven that the Teahouse is retaining editors and I think it is the friendly nature of the Teahouse that does that. I know I have occasionally forgotten a welcome, but we should make sure we are talking to editors who aren't leaving a welcome every time. I think it is the welcoming of editors that separates this from the help desk. I am grateful that I was allowed to assist editors even though I wasn't able to be a formal host due to the record keeping aspect. One of my favorite things about the help desk is how multiple editors will collaborate on a response. Nobody knows everything so it is nice to give all of the information that we can. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Ryan said above, the TH is one of the greatest thing since Adopt-a-user. I'd love to see a IRC channel in which hosts could assist users, and something similar to Adopt-a-user would be cool as well. Keep up the good work! --Nathan2055talk 00:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • My time with the Teahouse has been an awesome experience for me (even though my activity is a little low), it's like the Feedback Dashboard, but it's professional answers in a very user-friendly way. I love it, miss it, and wish I had the extra time to come back and answer some questions. I dreaded the problem of coming in to answer questions and seeing that the majority of them were already answered. Keep up the good work, Hosts! I'll be back soon, I promise :) --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 16:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Archive_4&oldid=1147995423"