Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Transwiki

This page is transwikied from an old version of Wikinews:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, plus I have made some minor edits to be appropriate for Wikipedia. Here is the page history:

1. (cur) (last) 23:42, 9 November 2005 Borofkin
2. (cur) (last) 23:25, 9 November 2005 Borofkin

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea

I like this page, it's a pretty damn good idea. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nighthawks

You know, these kind of things can backfire if someone sees condescension in the message, which has a rather feminine tone to it. I added a link to Nighthawks for balance and for those so inclined to that moody sort of atmosphere. I myself am not much of smoker, but that painting might also assist those so inclined, since it was from a time when that sort of thing could be done in a more intimate public setting such as that depicted. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer the Nighthawks pic to the one of the teapot and cup too.Rosa 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The tone of just "See also..." was removed, but I agree the current image is a bit washed out. Personally the tone "A nice cup of tea" is feminine in my mind, that's what makes it "cute", but feel free to add the image itself? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Wow this place really works.--62.6.139.11 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment above was misplaced in the project page, I'm putting it here...Rosa 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You sure its misplaced? looks like its referring to wikipedia as a whole! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm positive it's referring to the project of "a nice cup of tea and a sit down" as a place where people really come to blow off some steam but you could be right of course. Other facts that you might want to consider are: first, that comment was written below the "insert further niceness here" not above as is proper; second, this user has been reported as a vandal, a lot. My impression is that the user just stumbled upon this article by chance, saw that people really spoke nicely of each other in spite of having differences elsewhere and inserted the first thought that came into his/her mind into the project page. Rosa 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, you could be right about that. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wolves in sheep's clothing

Great idea, but what are we to do about vitriol dressed up as niceness? Current examples:

• All the people who wanted to downplay the fact that depleted uranium causes Gulf War syndrome have good qualities.
• The users who want to remove all references to War crimes from the Slobodan Milošević article simply because he died before he could be convicted surely have positive qualities as well.

which sort of thing translates (approximately) as

"the people I'm referring to are (due to the fact that they disagree with me) self-evidently a bunch of complete jerks, and I'm going to (mis)use this page to draw attention to the fact while pretending that I'm broad-minded enough to accept the fact that some people are always going to be incorrigible idiots".

If this sort of thing gets accepted, it will subvert the whole purpose of the page. What to do? Delete it? Have a word (nicely, of course) on their talk pages? Or perhaps be more specific about "What A nice cup of tea and a sit down is not for"? Vilĉjo 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hola, you're making a good point here. Maybe the person who created this page could delete the posts you have just mentioned. I don't think it's necessary to be more specific about "What A nice cup of tea and a sit down" is for though; those people posting that kind of messages know perfectly well they shouldn't be doing it but just want to pervert the spirit in which this project was created. My opinion is they should be treated like vandals for doing so.Rosa 07:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean out periodically

How often should the page be "cleaned up"? Whenever it starts to get full, or on a more regular basis? I'm just afraid some of the tea ain't so hot anymore, and people's bums are falling asleep from sitting so long. :-) Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind reordering it so the most recent tea-parties are at the top, rather than the bottom, of the list. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That does make sense, but all other such pages I've seen in Wikipedia have the newest things at the bottom. Maybe we should put in === headings for each month (maybe just one heading for 2005), making navigation easier (and perhaps have a TOC down there). We could also consider starting an archive when it gets simply too long. One last note: as others have said already (although maybe not in so many words), jolly good show! Tamino 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and do it anyway. What do you think? Tamino 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Dwarf reference

"Look, just because it's an armour-plated alien killing machine that salivates unspeakable slobber doesn't mean it's a bad person. What we've got to do is get it round a table and put together a solution package - perhaps over tea and biscuits." - Rimmer in "Polymorph" —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 06:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Another template

I was thinking of making a new template for this lovely project. Here is a copy of the draft. To tell me what you think/edit the draft/tell what a silly idea this is (choose one), go to User:Tamino/Tea2 template draft. Tamino 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	Someone has poured you a nice cup of tea. Won't you come and sit down?
	WKC

Since when is a nice, fresh cup of tea not a delightful, welcome thing? I say, Kudos to you. David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea and a sit down is a too long article name

So 'Compliment Someone' or 'Compliment a Wikipedian!' is a better title. Auroranorth 08:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to his project(?) Wikipedia:Compliment a Wikipedian!, which I suggested he merge here. --Quiddity 09:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Project? I suppose so - it can just be part of the Kindness Campaign. There's nothing wrong with another pageAuroranorth 11:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to shorten the name. A nice cup of tea and a sit down is exactly what this is. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Be thankful for its brevity. I'm considering creating a WP:Sit down take a stress pill and think things over (reference: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)) page. ;) David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I'm not sure if one of these has already been made but I made this:

This user enjoys pouring nice cups of tea. Would you like a cuppa?

at {{User:Yuanchosaan/Userbox/User teatime}}.

Is it any good? I'm part of the Kindness Campaign and wanted to make a userbox for this. Anyway, enjoy your tea and happy editing! Yuanchosaan 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

MfD?

I am considering nominating this page for deletion. In my experience this page and its associated template are used primarily as a passive-aggressive or patronising tool for suggesting an opponent is over-reacting or otherwise lacking self-control. Plus this page provides a forum for posting a public record of the (usually false, and made in bad faith) accusation that someone needed a nice cup of tea and a sit down. I don't doubt the good intentions of the creators and maintainers of this page, nor of those of you who use this in good faith, but in my opinion the contribution of this page to the encyclopaedia is overwhelmingly negative. Hesperian 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mis-understand the purpose of the page as well as it's usage. I have had this page on my watchlist for a long time and I have no idea what you're talking about. Have a read of the comments on this page and please justify your view that "the contribution of this page to the encyclopaedia is overwhelmingly negative".--Konstable 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every time I see anyone quoting "WP:TEA", the context indicates that it is a passive-aggressive substitute for "you're over-reacting and being a jerk, and I'm not". And when the victim goes to this project page, they read about how the person who posted it to them is following the rule of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", and that they have oh-so-honourably resisted the urge to whack you with a big backhanded compliment with a "but" on the end. But they haven't resisted the urge at all, because this page dishes out the backhanded compliment for them. And just to rub it in, the attacker gets to pwn them forever by posting a record to this project page.

I don't really care about the comments on this page; they are inherently biased. Get out there and have a look at how it is actually being used.

Hesperian 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen this page used like that, but I still don't see how that warrants deletion. Deleting this page won't help the issue, they'll find another way I assure you. There are pages that are being abused exponentially more heavily: meta:DICK, WP:TROLL and WP:POINT to name a few. Doesn't mean they should all deleted. At least this page provides a peaceful place for those who do use it properly. By the way I've had a look at what links to it and in most cases it is actually proper use. Let the trolls be trolls, let civil people have civil pages even if trolls mis-use them.--Konstable 12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing would help is changing the title little a 'sit-down" is US terms generally means something like in The Sopranos, & is not the way we're supposed to be conducting things. The term I use when I have these kind of talks, is "just some friendly advice" -- because that's equally what it is, an attempt to head off trouble, & I generally phrase it as how to do more effectively whatever it is they are trying to do. It tends to be resented anyway, because there is no really gentle way of telling somebody they're not doing things quite right, especially online. DGG (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm in basic agreement with Hesperian here – this page might be useful for users who are having a minor disagreement and feel the need to get things off to a new tact, but its utterly useless for any editors who are having a deep dispute of any substance. I also agree with Hesperian that in those cases, an invitation to this page comes across as profoundly passive/aggressive and really doesn't help the dispute resolution process along at all. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

This page should really have a link to NiceCupOfTeaAndASitDown from which both the name and the positive attitude have been taken. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly - although the phrase itself is quite generic. The reason www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com uses it is because it is such a cliche. - Borofkin (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase was used in a famous speech by New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange in 1987 -quite a while before the website was set up. I think there would be trouble with any specific attribution due to the phrase's widespread use in popular culture. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Coffee?

How about some coffee for us coffee drinkers? Rebelyell2006 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Coke

User:Scott5114 had told us once to take a cup of coke and settle down when I had a warring on numbers of California articles. Should this article be named as WP:A cold cup of soda and calm down? Usually when epople is about to get crazy a cold cup of coke settles them down.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 05:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Herbal?

Will anyone mind if I try to find an editor who's willing to put this page up at WP:MfD? A case could be made that it isn't directly relevant to building the encyclopedia and watching the ensuing drama would really life my spirits. Isn't it a bit like hidden pages? I guess it might just end in a speedy keep, but you never know! Oh well, one can dream... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Octocat

Would an Octocat reference be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.207.100 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Metaphoric Consistency

The introductory notes currently read: " … if you are living in the heat you can take a nice cold drink; if these aren't manly enough you can sit around a fire and drink beer."

I suggest this passage be reconsidered and rewritten; the first contrasted metaphor lacks symmetry (drink+sit ≠ drink), the endophoric "these" diminishes tropic intent, I'm assuming "manly" is safe under the Humour umbrella, and the latter example disrupts the metaphoric structure in such a way as to introduce ambiguity (compare alone "sit sown" with "sit around a fire") as well as designates a group activity rather than an individual one. Additionally, the phrase "living in the heat" sticks in my craw for some ineluctable reason (construction? formality?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RestChem (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

The page is getting pretty long. Should we archive the older posts? by year on separate subpages, like /2006, /2007 etc.? I'm hesitant to do this though, because this page is all about displaying the thank yous, it should all be visible, and the age of the post shouldn't really matter, the gratitude is still and always relevant. Another alternative would be to collapse the older posts using {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, similar to how it was done on the WP:Cleanup page, but once again, I'm hesitant because although with this method the posts will remain on the page and still be listed in the TOC, they'll still be hidden from immediate view and searching. Nevertheless, I think collapsing is the better option of the two, and I intend to do this soon but would like to hear the community's thoughts first. -- œ^™ 09:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors thanking themselves

Recently, almost all the activity on this page is from the 99.* "global warming" IP, thanking editors for reverting my reverting them. (There are only one, or possibly two, editors editing under that swarm of IP addresses.) Although this may still fall into the spirit of this page, recently, some of "them" have been thanking others of "them".(

Perhaps this page should be semi-protected, if it still has any use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that, and thought it increasingly odd how it's always that one IP. I'm curious whether this person is really sincere about his thanks yous or what they think they can accomplish by spamming this page with them. We could just easily revert.. -- œ^™ 17:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, why did you delete User talk:OhanaUnited and User talk:Granitethighs comments? You appear to be Edit warring on this page from other Wikipedia:I just don't like it, or something similar, concerns? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That may have been a mistake. It still violated WP:CANVASS, but it was a minor violation, and I probably shouldn't have done it. I didn't remove your thanking them on this page. I only removed your thanking yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be part of a larger issue, per Talk:Sustainability. I hope this isn't Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or something related, concern ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Much larger issue? wp:WITCH or Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas or Wikipedia:Don't feed the (fill-in the blank)? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "troll", referring to the IPs. But this should probably be hatted, as personal attacks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected, for a day or so, per my request. Perhaps we should discuss here whether that should be a permanent status. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No.. it should not be permanent. Although not very often, IPs have legitimately used this page in the past, and they should be allowed to give recognition and praise on this page just as much as registered users. We shouldn't let one tendentious abuser spoil it for them. -- œ^™ 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 99.35.12.207 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to block only certain IPs from the page? I suspect an edit filter could do it, but it would cost a lot of CPU time for little benefit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I've had enough, this board is clearly being abused by someone with a clear purpose towards climate change advocacy and I'm not buying it. No prejudice towards anyone removing all the shallow thank-yous but for now I extended the semi-protection. -- œ^™ 23:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party appropriate in "Also See" for the spirit of this Project?

Is Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party appropriate in "Also See" for the spirit of this Project? 99.181.137.81 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, you can go ahead and remove it if you want. -- œ^™ 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Or add Tea Party movement? 99.181.128.80 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'll remove it. Phearson (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are these being removed?

*For your comments on Talk:Politics of global warming, thank you Special:Contributions/141.218.36.44. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Special:Contributions/64.27.194.74 for your contributions to Talk:Sojourners. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188 for your defense on Talk:Geoengineering. 99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you're all the same person. Thanking yourself is not the reason for the page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Omniscience, Art? Do you get that from a pill, drinking, injecting something, or is it endogenous? 99.190.86.55 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Patch, pump, suppository ... so many explanations ... so limited time. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are IP users abused on wikipedia?

Why are IP Users abused on Wikipedia? Is it hazing? 166.252.69.48 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) See Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. 166.252.69.48 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not:

• An editor thanking himself for edits made under a different IP.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you write that, Art? 99.190.84.66 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that's what you do. You thank yourself. If you do it only on the IP's page, that would be bad enough, but you have to do it on WP:TEA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Give it a rest Art. 20:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Looking back over this, the same editor was thanking others for helping him bypass his block for some time. I believe his first block was in March 2012, so I struck all his "thanks" since then. But, perhaps, rather than being struck, they (and all previous "thanks" by the same person) should be moved to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down/Michigan Kid, leaving the rest of the page for honest use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin I can assure you that my edits in April of this year were in no way helping anyone bypass their block. It seems more likely that the editor in question is genuinely thanking other editors who have made edits he approves of. Quite possibly they are partisan in which edits they thank, but don't think that is a concern. I would suggest that these edits are simply ignored by those who do not wish to see them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Biscuits?

Why biscuits? I prefer stroopwafels! Wasbeer 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tea Template Issues?

I placed the {{tea}} template on someone's Talk page after adding an entry within the article, and for some reason the box displays a smile icon with the following unparsed text next to it:

Someone has poured you [[Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down#{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|tea]].

Is there something wrong with the template? Thanks! Amarand (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

best of luck. Ditch ∝ 02:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

What about a Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended, One Sweet'N Low and One Nutrasweet, and Ice and a sit down? Oh wait... that's an old Internet meme. ARGH!!!! KILL IT!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!! Another old Internet meme. I should stop being so hypocritical. MyOwnBadSelf | Consult the Fossil 10:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't leave comments such as these. MyOwnBadSelf | Consult the Fossil 07:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This page

It's a great page to have on our wiki, and should be used MUCH more often than it is, as of 2017. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tea is listed, biscuits are listed, some accessories are listed, but...

What kind of cakes y'all got? Isn't it supposed to sometimes be tea and cakes? That way I can have water and cakes.

75.142.254.3 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)