Wikipedia talk:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse; please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.

You can also talk in real time chat at Wikipedia's Help Channel, and participate in discussions at the host lounge, and most of all, Please do not bite the newcomers.

Archival bot: update and questions (bot name, posting to IP talk pages)

Hello folks. I have coded a good half of the Teahouse archival bot thingie (you can have a look at a few subfunctions in my GitHub). Basically, it will let User:Lowercase sigmabot III do the archival (as before), and rely on the archival edits to perform the notifications: identifying the initiator of a post is basically done, and I can recover the archival link from lowercase sigmabot III's edit summary. I have still the posting to user talk pages part to do, but I am going to need to go through the bot approval process before I can do any serious testing of that and there are two questions for which I would like some input.

1. I propose to name the bot "MuninnBot" (as in Huginn and Muninn, plus cropping Munin from the Commons 2016 POTY would make a sympathetic picture for the bot's page). But please propose other ideas if you have interesting ones.
2. More serious question: should we apply its functionality (posting archival notifications to user talk pages) to IP editors? The obvious problem is dynamic IPs, meaning that notifications can miss their mark (if the target editor changes IPs, they will miss the notification, and someone else (who took the IP address) might get it instead (which is spamming)). What do you think? (Also, if we do want to notify IPs, there will be a second round of debate during bot approval.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re question 2: excuse me for being dense, but could you clarify what you mean by "archival notifications"? Is this about people who don't make it back here to look for an answer to their question before the thread is archived? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Well, sigmabot just archived the previous discussion. See here. Yes, the idea is to post a note to people whose post gets archived, explaining what happened and where to find the archive.

The bot is going to refrain from notifying certain editors. I would propose not to notify an autoconfirmed or blocked user (the former because they are supposed to know about archival, the latter per WP:DENY); the exact criteria for the first one can be debated, but I think it is pretty clear that some form "don't notify the regulars" is needed. (Maybe we could add an opt-in list for those who want.) But IPs, things are more complicated and that is certainly going to come up at WP:BAG, so I would better have a discussion beforehand. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: I still think we should just add the archiving functionality to HostBot. It already posts to users' talk pages. But, as long as it does what it's supposed to, I don't really care if we create a new bot or add on to an old one, and I don't really care what we name the new bot.

Question 2: Yes, I believe we should notify IP editors. Many IPs aren't so dynamic that they will change between the time they ask the question and the time they check back for an answer. In addition, we could have the bot use {{subst:shared IP advice}} (or something like it) on IP talk pages if that's possible.

— Gestrid (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• I for one don't care about the bot name, or whether it is part of the existing HostBot or not. I do care about whom it notifies. i think autoconfirmed is far too low a threshold. If you must have a threshold, use extended confirmed, but even that is rather low in my view. Anyone asking a question at the teahouse is likely to find such a notification helpful. Even those who understand archiving can find it tedious to search for the exact archive involved: frankly i wish ANI notified every poster of archived posts, except those who op-out. Why not make this just notify everyone who starts a section unless they opt out? And I agree with Gestrid, notify IP editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, DES. Personally, I think it should notify everyone except blocked editors and those who have some form of the {{nobots}} template on their page or talk page. Additionally, the message the bot leaves should have instructions on how to opt out, and it should let editors know that it's a bot because many new editors have no idea what a Wikipedia bot is or that they exist. (I recall one particular time when someone posted to WP:TH back when it was still a splash page thanking GaiaGirl for her help. GaiaGirl is a part of The Wikipedia Adventure.) — Gestrid (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Darn ping... — Gestrid (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

{{U}|Tigraan}} does that give you something to work on? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I would have much trouble implementing any threshold that is decided on as long as it doesn't take esoteric invokations of the API. I agree autoconfirmed is too low, I meant ECP but somehow mixed up the two when typing the above.

I take it that unless otherwise instructed at bot approval, I will make no difference between IP and logged in editors. (That's marginally less work, yeah!) So the only check I will put (in the test version at least) will be the blocked editors thing.

I have no issues with merging my codebase to HostBot if Jtmorgan (ping) agrees, but this would require either that they take up the maintenance of the bot, or that HostBot gets multiple maintainers. I am not sure that is possible. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I'm happy to add you as a co-maintainer of HostBot. It would probably be a good thing, for long-term stability, to have another HostBot maintainer around. There would be two steps involved: adding you as a collaborator on the GitHub repo so that you can push your local code changes there, and then adding you to the HostBot project on ToolLabs so you can pull those updates into production and edit the crontab. This will take a little coordination to set up... the good news is that it can happen at any point; e.g. you can write your code, file your bot request, run a trial, and then we can merge the functionality into HostBot at a later date (I'm sure BAG won't mind). So perhaps it makes sense to run your BAG trial from your own bot account, and we can follow up on merging after it's approved. Let me know what you think, J-Mo 13:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I intended to make the BAG request for a semi-automated trial run for a week or so before going full auto, so we are on the same wavelength here.

Before making me co-maintainer of HostBot though, you must realize that (1) I am going to need some serious tutoring about the ToolLabs etc. and (2) while I would be happy to maintain the task at hand, I am certainly not going to commit to being co-maintainer of other HostBot tasks (at least before I become familiar with bot maintenance without me screwing up big time). But we can talk about that after the initial testing. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, Tigraan. Cheers, J-Mo 15:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot request is live

Here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with socks/trolls asking Teahouse questions

Earlier today, a new editor that I instantly recognised as a sock posted a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#I just want to know how to put a chemical formula. After Maproom and Gråbergs Gråa Sång had responded in good faith, I started an SPI and posted a link to it in the Teahouse section, saying that we shouldn't indulge socks. Robert McClenon and DESiegel objected to this, so I thought I should raise the issue here to see if we can reach consensus on how to deal with such situations. In a previous case, documented at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive 11#Sockpuppetry and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 14#The "Michael Cole vandal" is back, most hosts seemed to support deleting the questions, but DESiegel has suggested that this is immoral (see comments in the section currently on the main Teahouse page, linked above). Robert McClenon has suggested at User talk:Cordless Larry#Trolls that deleting questions gives recognition to trolls. What do others think? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the SPI clerks from this case, Vanjagenije, DoRD and Nthep, in case they have a view or advice on what approach is best. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry - First, thank you for reporting any sockpuppets at WP:SPI. When I report sockpuppets, I do not notify them of the report, or say anything to indicate that I have reported them. WP:SPI is different from other noticeboards such as WP:ANI, in that there is no rule that you should notify editors. Second, the previous discussions had to do with repetitive asking of questions, such as repetitively asking the difference between oversight, revdel, and deletion. (The difference between oversight or suppression and revdel or redaction is a technical one with who can do it, how definitive it is, and when it is justified. Deletion can be done by anyone.) I don't think that there is any benefit, and there is a downside, to deleting one-time questions only because they are from sockpuppets or trolls. I will have to go back and look at what DES wrote, because I don't recall anything to the effect that deleting the question is immoral, only that it is unwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that while today's sock has not been asking the same question repeatedly, they have asked a number of Teahouse questions. I sort of understand your logic, but I think the bigger risk is if we continue to answer questions from clear socks, they will keep coming back with more questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think that I would revert such deletions from the Teahouse on sight and without discussion, if I became aware of them, unless the question itself was disruptive. And what I intended to say was immoral was the entire concept of WP:DENY. If there is no rule requiring notification of an SPI, there should be. The current SPI system not uncommonly works injustice, in my view. One of these days some editor is going to be sued for declaring another to be a sock based purely on behavioral evidence. But that is a bit off the topic here, i am sorry. In any case I think deletign questions from the Teahouse because the asker is, or is alleged to be, a sock is both unwise and wrong, and also against policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would not knowingly indulge a troll. But when a username unknown to me asks a reasonable-looking question, I try to answer it. If I were obliged first to form a view on whether he was a troll, it would take me too long; instead I would just give up on The Teahouse. So your reprimand, or so I read it, of me and Gråbergs Gråa Sång seemed misdirected (whereas I have a lot of respect for your work here). If you maintain somewhere a "list of known trolls", I can check it before answering questions. I see now that there is such a list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. I'll use it in future, though the need to do so will make me generally less inclined to try to give help. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if my comment came across as a reprimand, Maproom. That was certainly not my intention. My aim was simply to alert you and Gråbergs Gråa Sång that your time was likely being wasted. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That was how I read it (not as a reprimand). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this is a regular enough issue for anyone to need to check any list of suspect editors before answering questions here. That would waste even more time that could be spent answering questions. I just recognised this one from previous Teahouse questions and when I checked their contributions, it was clear that they were socking. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. In general I support the approach of answering questions that appear to be reasonable regardless or not of whether the OP is shown to be a sock, on the basis that the question and answer may help someone else out. My exception to this would be if the questioning is disruptive e.g. repeatedly asking the same question, or just trolling with completely off-topic posts at which point I consider removing the questions to be a reasonable action. In this particular case from one of the user pages I believe we are dealing with a young editor and the socking is competence based not malicious. Nthep (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Back in the good old days before Teahouse was overrun with paid editors expecting us to train them for free so they could make money, I learned as much from reading others' questions as I did from the ones I asked. So if the question can provide an answer that is useful for anyone, then it shouldn't be removed or hatted. However if it is obvious trolling or WP:SOAPBOX, them stick it under a hat. And our "laundry" should be here, not on the Q&A page. If any host has a problem with another host, it should go to User talk and if wider discussion is needed, here. John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to Cordless Larry's ping above: I don't know much about the Teahouse, or the conventions here, but if I saw a question from an account that is an obvious sockpuppet, I'd probably remove their question shortly after blocking them. I'm not going to go in to detail as to whether suspected sockpuppets should be notified (they shouldn't be) or whether WP:DENY is moral (?) or not as those are topics for their respective talk pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Many people come here after getting a teahouse welcome. Perhaps people could exercise a little restraint in inviting editors whose first edits don't look like a goodfaith but inexperienced newbie? ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• As to changing notifications, that's done en masse by hostbot, and I don't know that there's an effective way to vet those notifications effectively on the scale that they're happening. Overall, we should err on the side of AGF in answering apparently genuine questions, both to fulfill our core purpose (being basically a monument to AGF), and for bystanders as other's have pointed out. The Teahouse averages about a thousand views per day, which is entirely more than can be accounted for by those actually asking questions. One that note, what the actual hell happened on 31 May? Is that a bug or did we get mentioned on the cover of the New York Times? TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the hubbub bub? This is an extreme rarity. But if we know a troll is a troll, block, deny, ignore. Of course we AGF until we know. This has happened what, five times? As mentioned above, we seem swamped with paid editors. I think it would be great if we could focus on refining the notifications system to change whose questions we are answering, even a ten percent change. I am clueless on the tech side of that, but would gladly help if someone told me something I could do on that front.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Reference Desks have become a toxic corner of Wikipedia largely because some editors are so concerned about trolls and inappropriate questions that they increase the severity of the problem by arguing about what to do with the trolls and the inappropriate questions, and that just encourages the trolls. I think that only very very rarely is it appropriate to delete or hat a question. If someone knows that an editor is a troll, the best response is almost always to ignore then completely (not to delete the question). Questions should be deleted if they are inherently offensive, but I haven't seen questions at this Teahouse that are inherently offensive. If a question is merely repetitive, having been asked before, is there any harm in just ignoring it? I agree that trolls should be blocked, but that is an admin function. I agree that trolls should be reported at WP:AIV (even if they don't exactly qualify as vandals, because reporting them at WP:ANI feeds them). But it is better in most cases to ignore trolls by ignoring them than by deleting their questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am with Robert McClenon on this one.

We all have certain responses that worked well for our paleolithic ancestors but are poorly suited to dealing with Internet trolls.

There are other species that have the same problem; moths did fine for millions of years navigating by the light of the moon, but the same behavior causes them to beat themselves to death against electric lights (See Moth#Attraction to light). Deer did fine for a long, long time by freezing when danger approached, but this behavior is ill-suited when they are crossing a road and the danger is an oncoming car.

In like manner, humans in small hunter-gatherer groups or small farming communities did well by expressing disapproval when other humans acted certain ways. The target knew that if he/she didn't start following community norms they would face violence or be outcast. This same behavior is ill-suited for dealing with humans on the other end of an Internet connection posting under a pseudonym, and the trolls take full advantage of this.

Long, long experience, going back to pre-internet networks like USENET and FidoNet has shown us exactly how to deal with trolls: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Don't give them any attention, not even negative attention. Long experience has shown us that when they fail to get a reaction they usually get tired of shouting into an empty hall and go elsewhere.

Note that denying attention to trolls includes not responding when others feed the trolls. This will feel wrong. Your emotions will tell you that if you express disapproval they will stop feeding the trolls, but that is not what happens. Instead they debate whether this particular question was trolling, and they will discuss -- at length -- what our reaction to trolls should be. You will respond, others will jump in, and all you will have accomplished is to feed the troll a nice dish of Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. This will attract more trolls. However, if you have the same conversation about feeding trolls on the troll-feeder's talk page you may influence his behavior without feeding the trolls. And, no, you should not post a link to that discussion on the Tea House. That would be feeding the trolls.

It may happen that a particular troll escalates his trolling and becomes more and more disruptive, hoping that someone will feed him if he behaves badly enough. If that happens, report him at WP:ANI with no indication on any Tea House page that you have done so.

Try it. It works. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not feasible. You have to remove the post. That is still a denial of attention. I'm not sure whether I agree or not that in a perfect world leaving the post in place but making sure no one responds to it would be the best reaction, but it's not workable because someone else who does not know what you know about the post being that of a troll will respond, which will then inevitably result in someone else, if they know, responding about the post being troll bait ("don't waste your time because..."), which will in turn result in this kind of conversation all over again. Leaving out the revert part makes sure someone's time will be wasted, if not yours, and it is feeding the troll, because wasting someone's time is the point. You will just kick the can down the road to allow someone else to be the victim and guarantee troll nourishment. Do you remember that scene in The Social Network with the fictionalized Zuckerberg hitting refresh over and over and over watching for a response. That's your troll, with a leer, watching for someone biting. Unknowing victim, or enraged response because someone realizes what is going on: both are the point for the person. The most de-motivational thing you can do is when they refresh, their post is just gone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Remover the post (if it was in itself legit, not disruptive) and expect to be reverted, along with a statement of who removed it and what their alleged reason was. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, no, you do not "have to remove the post". Removing the post feeds the trolls. The responses criticizing and/or supporting your removal feed the trolls. The revert that will follow your removal feeds the trolls. What you have to do (and by "have to" I mean "do it this way or you will be warned, and if you persist you will be blocked") is to never attempt to remove a post other than in the specific situations outlined in WP:TPOC. If you think someone is being disruptive enough to have their post removed, report them at WP:ANI and let the admins decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit is right that just ignoring the question isn't a solution, because it's never going to be the case that every Teahouse host is aware that a poster is a sock or troll. That's why I responded to this case by trying to make everyone aware of the situation in a place that they would see if they were going to answer the sock's question. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My answer is short and sweet -- the question could be of potential interest to other users, so answer it accordingly. Secondly, posting a response of "we're not going to answer your question because of X, Y, Z" could be seen as a turn-off to some new users who might not have an understanding of what is going on. That's not the environment that we want the Teahouse to be. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're assuming we will act like the reference desk and there WILL be a revert of the removal, followed by some internecine fighting over keeping that post. If I thought that would always happen I would agree with you. But I think we're a more reasonable bunch (I'm sorry for the aspersion against RD regulars but it's needs mentioning here for my point). The convention of removal to deny feeding works seemingly everywhere on Wikipedia but there because of some alchemy it's hard to pinpoint. Regardless, reverting is the convention because allowing a troll's post to stay, so that someone's time is wasted in a good faith response, is conclusively feeding, and a harm to that good faith answerer (which harm you are guaranteeing will occur, where the reverse is not the case), and further guaranteeing the troll's continued interest by making sure their gambit to waste someone's time is successful and so verifying their fishing hole has rich pickings. If a troll gets nothing but their post gone their whole purpose is foiled. Of course, if you make this a self-fulfilling prophecy by being the person who would revert that removal, then I don't know what to say.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a direct violation of WP:TPOC, and will get you blocked if you do it and persist persist in doing it after warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy, WP:TPOC is utterly irrelevant: 3rd exception: "Removing harmful posts" (nor are our policies and guidelines statutes).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If an otherwise legit question is removed from the Teahouse, and I see the removal (and I look at the Teahouse history most days lately), I will revert that removal immediately and without discussion, using the vandalism rollback, and add a statement of who removed it and what the expressed reason was. In such a case I will at least consider blocking without further discussion for the violation of WP:TPOC. By "otherwise legit question" I mean one that is not inherently disruptive, but can only be construed as a problem because of the identity or alleged identity of the poster. The "Removing harmful posts" exception does not apply, because a legit question is by definition not harmful. I hope all this stays purely hypothetical, and that no one chooses to remove a legitimate question merely because the poster is, or is thought to be, a sock or troll. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DES If we know a person is a troll or sockpuppet based on their behavior, and they ask a seemingly good faith question we know is not in good faith, and it's point is to waste our time, that is harm and the worst kind of feeding. So here's you opportunity. I've just removed the bad faith post by this troll and sockpuppet, who we fed last week at this thread where they asked the identical question. This is a troll and an abusive sockpuppet – conclusively. Do you really think reverting me here is the right thing to do, rather than extremely harmful? Do you think if you use vandalism rollback for that you won't be in grave error?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

ARRGH. I really really wish you had not removed that post, Fuhghettaboutit, and I still think it was the wrong thing to do. But given that it was an exact repetition of a post previously asked and answered, it was disruptive and therefore not a "legitimate post" as I defined it above. Had I seen it first I would have answered pointing out the previous answer, and requesting that questions not be repeated. I am still tempted to restore the question and give that answer. I do not think that reverting the removal would be harmful, let alone extremely harmful. But given the current block of the user involved there is limited point. I would say that we do not know that this question was asked in bad faith, at least I do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that, given that the original has been archived. I wish the archive-link bot, described in a section above, were already running, then one could be sure that a user was informed when a question and response was archived. I will think about this one, and not restore right away. But I do ask for a consensus that such removals are wrong, and should not be done in future, even when the user involved has been blocked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I really can't understand what restoring this question would achieve, given that it's already been asked and answered. The only rationale I can think of is if the editor who asked it hasn't seen the previous answer because of it having been archived, but given that the editor is blocked as a persistent sockpuppet, why would they need to know anyway? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Our sock is back. I have gone for this approach on this occasion, but would not object if someone else deleted the section. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think your approach is exactly correct, Cordless Larry. Please do not remove this section, anyone. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

Thank you for this having this discussion, particularly as a reference for today. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you fr the Inviting into Teahouse

Hope the Regresa plot was good Simi.sk902 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak's questions

Note: Do not click on the links in this post if you do not want to see images of nudity. A user called Nazim Hussain Pak, who signs his posts "Sinner" has posted a number of questions on the Teahouse page, seeking help with blocking images of nudity on Wikipedia. I notice that he has also created User:Nazim Hussain Pak/Books/Breasts and apparently User:Bilad il Islamia/sandbox too, using a different account - both of which contain images of female nudity. I'm not sure whether and how to raise this in response to his questions, so I am posting here for others to consider and advise. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the second account has been blocked as a sock. I don't know what he is doing with the images(especially since him using the images seems to be a polar opposite of his original post), but it doesn't seem pertinent to improving Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Archival bot (yet another update): trial is coming

Hello folks,

Just to let you know that I am going to post notifications (starting in about 10 hours) that look like the following:

Hi Editor name! You created a thread called Name of thread at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.

Hopefully that is clear enough that you will not see any fallback, but if someone asks questions relative to the bot notifications, please redirect them to my talk page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Something that we should perhaps keep an eye out is that users don't follow the link to the archive page and then start a new thread there, rather than back at the main Teahouse page. That strikes me as a potential issue given the wording of the template. Hopefully the lack of a "New section" tab on the archive pages will minimise this risk, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I linked the "create a new thread" part for future notices, it should help. BTW do not hesitate to edit the template if you catch anything else. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about adding, just after "...please create a new thread." something like: "To provide context for your follow-up in a new thread, please refer to the prior discussion as best you can. If you know how, you could provide a section link to it, e.g., in the form Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 625#Exact Name of Section, replacing "625" with the number of the archive and "Exact Name of Section" with the section name. Too wordy? Something shorter but in that vein?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that such a language will be either too wordy or useless - "name the WP page you are talking about" is one of the very few instructions that pop up before posting here and it routinely gets ignored; so how to link an archive is probably too complicated for those who need the instructions. However, I believe it is feasible to pre-fill the title of a new thread link - in which case making it default to Follow-up question to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive XXX#Exact Name of Section or similar would do the trick much more efficiently. I have no time to do so right now but will look into it shortly - if someone else knows how to do it, feel free to edit the template. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create a new wiki page..??

I see that there is some topic I don't​ find on Wikipedia, can I add it or create it. If yes how can I add..?? Imranalihbs (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Imranalihbs. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to give you a simple yes or no answer because it really depends on several things. A good page to read is Wikipedia:Your first article. I think you'll find it gives you the information you need. If not, please come back and let us know. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)