Wikipedia talk:New contributors' help page/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

HELP

[Help] CrocGator (Talk)

1

There's been quite a lot of promoting anon IPs as clueless newbies. Most of these newbies are only here for a day or two; the vast majority listed here have not been active in Wikipedia for over a month. Does anyone oppose making a "Clueless newbie" archive page? In addition, does anyone oppose splitting listing registered users from anon IPs when someone lists them here (i.e. list as two different sections?) Thanks. Flcelloguy 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on archival; we should definately archive the page regularly (there are entries on this page from over a year ago!). In fact, I'm going to be bold and go ahead and archive anything over a month old. -- Essjay · Talk 12:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Archival complete; all posts over one month old (including some back to mid-2003) have been archived. -- Essjay · Talk 14:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why bother archiving? Just clear them out. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive so that people can see if there questions have already been addressed, but then, Where are the answers? Are there instructions for how to answer a post here? Andrew Powell 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

morpine addiction

Is there a millagram amount of morphine that can be easier to withdraw from,for example 5mg against 40mg per 24 hours.--144.131.181.11 05:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not personally recommend consulting the internet for medical advice, but this kind of question is probably best directed to the folks at the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 07:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

For all opiates, the greater the intake, the more severe the withdrawal symptoms will likely be. If the daily dose is high enough, withdrawal may (rarely) even cause death, so you probably should ask a doctor. Your local health department and crisis hotlines can probably answer your questions on withdrawal a lot better than we can. --Go for it! 22:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The following link describes differences in withdrawal from (and treatment requirements for) different levels of addiction, though they don't go into specific dosages (low, medium, heavy), but you may find it informative: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_subabu_bha.htm. I hope this helps. --Go for it! 22:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Another entry point for this page

I added another #entry point for the requesters who come here from the Help page/portal. --Ancheta Wis 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Major structural change to this page

I'm proposing a major structural change to this page: Wikipedia:Clueless newbies.

The name

The name can have negative connotations - is this how we want to welcome new users? Clueless ("Ignorant; uninformed; stupid" - from OED online) and Newbie ("The term is generally regarded as an insult" - from Newbie)

I suggest Wikipedia:Newcomers help page, but would welcome any good alternatives.

The structure

At the moment there is a section at the top where new users list their Username (why?) as the heading and then ask a question. At the bottom there is a section, "Nominations of others", to dob in - or point out flaws - in new users.

I suggest we keep the question asking section - and format it much like the Help desk. Each question gets a heading related to the question, and new questions are asked at the bottom of the list. Answers can be placed on the project page or on users talk pages - just like what is done now.

I also suggest that the "Nominations of others" section moves to a different project page completely. We'll call it Wikipedia:Nomination of new users in need of help, but I'm open to better naming suggestions. Let me know what you think. --Commander Keane 02:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What about merging WP:BC and this place? After all, they deal with more or less the same (helping newbies), only that BC is more centered on using IRC as a tool to help, but have had a few questions asked at the talkpage as well, duplicating the functions of this page. What does other feel about merging the two? Bjelleklang - talk 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Coordinating / combining these projects sounds like a good idea. How about a general Wikipedia:New users group? Something they could join and become a part of, not just a place to come, ask a question, and leave. Right now we have the user log, which seems like a neat idea and kind of fun when you first hear about / use it, but then you realize there is no followup... +sj + 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a single project page that tracks welcoming users, new user introductions, clueless newbies and how to help them, and tutorials and boot-camp sessions to quickly bring interested users up to speed with intensive training. Many of these groups could have their own set of icons that they leave on user pages once they are done; so that another Wikipedian, on stumbling across their userpage, will know how well they have been introduced to the community. +sj +

Suggestion on merging with the bootcamp

I have seen both here and on the Wikipedia:Boot Camp talk about these projects merging. This makes a lot of sense indeed, as they are focused on the same thing, helping newbies. This project does Wikipedia-based help, the bootcamp does IRC help, but combining both in the same place may give people more choices of how to get help, and may combine the helpers from both projects.

Sorry for the obnoxious merge template I slapped on top of both this project and the bootcamp, but I guess there needs to be a way to attract attention to this proposal. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed things structurally about this page (inlcuding the name), so I removed the merge tag - since I merged the pages also.--Commander Keane 11:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is this page different from Clueless newbies and the Help desk? I think the {{helpme}} tag could easily refer to Clueless newbies instead of yet another page. Combining would integrate the new template with existing systems. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Clueless newbies doesn't exist anymore, so Newcomers help page isn't another page. Newcomers help page differs from the help desk in that we encourage simple questions, whereas the help desk may be daunghting. Also, we often leave a note on someone's talk page about the answer, since new users are less likely to check back.--Commander Keane 18:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Broken link?

Is it just me, or is the "Click here to ask your question" link at the top of the article page broken? dfg 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It was broken recently, I don't understand why the editor did it, but it's fixed now.--Commander Keane 18:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Obscure information. Frustrated

I am hoping you can help me. If you look at Daniel Dunglas Home you see that all my information User:Kazuba has been deleted. The reason given is "New Research" This happens frequently to my material. It is NOT new. It is just something others missed when writing about this topic by skimming over the material or being very selective, or it is material they have never read before due to a lack of interest. It is NOT new. I try only to write on subjects of which I have some knowledge. Perhaps may I boldly say some expertise. Even if I give citations this makes no difference. Would you please take a look at the article Daniel Dunglas Home examine my added and completely deleted materials, and explain to me just exactly what I am doing wrong. Or if I am being treated unfairly how do I, perhaps with your help, correct it? Or am I "out to lunch" ,as us street people would say? Plese reply soon. User:Kazuba 25 Feb 2006

Template:RD

I noticed that about half of the questions asked here belong on the refdesk. Over on the Help Desk, we had a similar problem, so we created {{RD}}, which makes responding to these questions much easier. I thought you guys might find this useful.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure many of our users would want to or could follow those instructions, we have been adding it to the reference desk ourselves then linking. I think more people would actually use the ref desk that way. I dunno, it is more work but it probably easier in the long run for the people asking. I don't feel that strongly about it though, so.. :) - cohesion^t 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. It made the life of those who responded a lot easier, and I though you guys might like it. If you can think of a way to make the instructions clearer/more polite, please change it.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, maybe some will start using it now (or maybe we will create our own variety - there was discussion about that above)--Commander Keane 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd start using whatever people liked, I don't mean to sound like a party pooper :) - cohesion^t 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Copying to user talk pages

A question on Newcomers Help Page usage - is it usual to copy a response to the user's talk page, as well as (or instead of) writing it on here? I have recently come from the Ref Desk, where this is never done (for obvious reasons), and while I can see that it would make more sense here as newcomers are less likely to know about watchlists and checking back for changes, but respond better to a "you have a new message" flash. Do you generally copy / move your answers to the questioner's talk page? Is it something that, in your opinion, should be done on a more regular basis? — QuantumEleven | (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I do it, when I can be bothered. When I cant, I dont. I probably should. --Chachu207 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving and organizing the page

Is there anyone who would oppose using one header for each day to organize the page, similar to the reference desk, and also using a bot like Crypticbot to archive the page by dates? Also, I'd like to archive posts after two weeks instead of a month, to avoid filling up the page by more than 100+ posts, and if possible to do this by using a bot. Anyone opposed? Bjelleklang - talk 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dont see why not. --Chachu207 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Archiving more often seems like a good plan, the page is very long now. I'm almost tempted to suggest archiving every week. Henrik 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly agree. I was just about to make a comment similar to this, but I see you've beaten me to it by over a year. It seems like not much has changed since then, anyways. — Bob • (talk) • 04:37, July 26, 2007 (UTC)
• When we get to the start of August, and/or after the next archive, I would like to start adding level 1 date headers as per the Help Desk and Ref Desk. A weekly archival is certainly the best approach; how about every Wednesday (or there abouts)? Adrian M. H. 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate department

This page is now identical in function to the Help Desk. What's the point in having two departments that do exactly the same thing? --Go for it! 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we are meant to emphasize the alternative help services ({{helpme}} and IRC) at the top of the page (this is related the cohesion's question below - why is that reference desk thingo taking up so much room?)

Also, there are subtle difference to what we offer here. We don't have long explanation on how to ask questions (becasue we have lower standards for new users). We try to invite stupid (I don't think any question is stupid) that newcomer might be embarrassed to ask at the WP:HD. We also will post a note on the user's talk page becasue they might be too unexperienced to make their way back here to find the answer.--Commander Keane 10:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of the differences you cited above don't exist. (The header is bigger, but that's because I just added a questions menu). Though on retrospect, having two columns of text (long scrolling pages) with volunteers divided between them is more efficient than one even longer single column of text. So this duplicate department has my support. If you need help with anything, just let me know. By the way, I've taken the liberty to streamline the header, and I've added a set of some instructions for the volunteers here as well. I hope you find them useful. Oh, and one more thing... have fun!  ;-) --Go for it! 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Message complexity

The message at the top telling people to use the reference desk probably shouldn't be so long if we expect people to read it. - cohesion^t 10:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Something smaller would be better (I think we had that before). I didn't even read the new one, so I'd be happy for it to be reduced/removed right away.--Commander Keane 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The help desk has a nice, succinct one:

For subject-related questions, like on history, art, science, etc., please go to the Reference desk.

I'm going to put it up here and see how it works. This being the Newcomer's help page, we should do our best to keep things simple, IMO. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems to realise though, that the page is for wikipedia related questions only. Is there not something that will work! --Chachu207 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just above the yellow box, it says "A place to get help with using Wikipedia", which I think covers it. But if you can come up with a better solution, please by all means go ahead and change it! :) — QuantumEleven | (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Helpers page

We should have a helpers' page... so we know who are the Bootcamp helpers...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea Tdxiang! I have created Wikipedia:Newcomers help page/Participants for the time being, so helpers can list themselves there. I also created Wikipedia:Newcomers help page/Guestbook. Not sure it's a great idea, but it would be good to get some feedback (and I have been asked by a newcomer where they can give praise - the guestbook is the place). I'm open to ideas about these things.--Commander Keane 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Page rename for Newcomers help page

Maybe this page should be called Wikipedia:Newcomers' help page (note the apostrophe). Should I move it?--Commander Keane 07:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For me, it's fine. Let's wait for other opinions. Fetofs ^Hello! 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The page should not be renamed, it should be merged with the Wikipedia:Help Desk and serves exactly the same function. --Go for it! 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be renamed or merged, but more emphasis should be put in the main useage, which is (or was) the use of {{helpme}} and the IRC realtime help. Bjelleklang - talk 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a "total rename". It's just an apostrophe, I don't see what would be bad in including it? Fetofs ^Hello! 13:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Too be fair, I don't really see what the distinction between this page (as it is now) and Wikipedia:Help Desk is supposed to be. However, they both seem to be keeping busy, which means people are finding their way to both pages. Henrik 21:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the move, I thought it could be a grammar issue but it's no big deal. Anyway, I want more emphasis on the use of {{helpme}} and IRC. It's hard to spot the information for them - and they are a major focus. I was also thinking we should create Wikipedia:Newcomers' FAQ (with just 3 or 4 of the common questions we get). Oh yeah, often we get the request from a new user to have their new article reviewed. I think we could offer that service here too - they just create a new question with the article name etc. I don't know how we would offer that though. What do people think?--Commander Keane 14:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I support that idea, as one of those new users who wants their new articles reviewed. I am seeking feedback on my two articles on Google Groups and the movie Homerun. You could make a page where the newcomer posts a link to their article with a little information. You then read the article and reply with your review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The present name, Wikipedia:Newcomers help page, could be somewhat misleading, because it is not a collection of instructions like the other Help pages. I suggest it would be better to move it to something like Wikipedia:Newcomer's questions. Any thoughts? --Blainster 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically this page isn't just about answering questions, it's for presenting the links to IRC and {{helpme}} too. For one reason or another, the links to IRC and {{helpme}} have been buried in the intro. They should be more prominent.--Commander Keane 20:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that they are listed under "Special services", they stand out a lot better, don't you think? --Go for it! 11:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Reference Desk questions

We seem to be getting quite a lot of Reference Desk questions lately (or they're just coming all at once and it seems like a lot). Regardless, the Help Desk managed to cut down on the number of incoming Reference Desk questions somewhat (although they still get a bunch too) when the "Where to ask other kinds of questions" box menu got put in at the top (you can see it on the top of the Help Desk page). I feel like that would help out here too, and direct at least some of the questions to the correct location. It's a little more noticable than the small table that is here now, and includes a more detailed list of places to ask questions, while still being user friendly. -- Natalya 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reference desk

I think that the wording at the top of the page, "A place to get help with using Wikipedia", could be a big reason for why people are leaving reference desk-type questions here. Of course, another possibilities is that this sort of thing attracts a particularly dim-witted breed of trolls... (trying to see if a clueless question can provoke an exasperated response - you have to think like a troll, you see...). But anyway, the problem with the wording is that, as many, many people have pointed out elsewhere, "using" Wikipedia, especially if you have never edited it, means looking something up!! Even though the next few sentences correct this mis-understanding, it is generally too late. The damage will have been done, and another Reference Desk question will be posted here. Also, has anyone actually watched to see if questions asked here are asked later at the Reference Desk when someone redirects them? That would reveal if people either: (a) don't bother coming back; or (b) were never serious about their question. For what it is worth, "A place to get help with editing Wikipedia and finding your way around" is what I would suggest. Carcharoth 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. I went ahead and changed the wording in the header. — TheKMan^talk 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

More design ideas for the header

{{helpme}} and IRC are not "special" services, and they should get greater prominence in the header. Also, the "How to ask a question" instructions should conclude with the "Click here to ask your question" link. Please go ahead and make these changes, I think others have a better feel for design than me.--Commander Keane 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it up a bit, moving the "click here to ask a question" link to right below the instructions, and then placing what used to be "special services" in with the "where to get other questions answered" table, which seems to make it more prominent. -- Natalya 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How to get pictures off the net

{{helpme}}I am having trouble getting pictures from the internet. Can someone help me?--

Comics8:57 March 28 2006

Well, in what way? By the way, I'd appreciate it if you were to place it on our page in here. Thank you.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Feedback Desk

I'm going to be bold (not reckless, I hope) and add a new page, the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk, for newcomers to get feedback on their articles and major edits. Please give feedback on the page and my articles. I hope this is well-received by the Wikipedia community, although I doubt I'll become world famous for it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to incorporate this service into this page, Newcomers help page. Is that feasible?--Commander Keane 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it definitly belongs with the Newcomers help page, but it would be nice to be able to organize all of the articles that want to be reviewed so they don't get lost in transit - would it be feasable to do that on this page too? -- Natalya 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be a seperate page from Newcomers Help Page, because welcoming users and giving feedback on articles are two different tasks. By the way, I tried to add a link to the Article Feedback Desk at the top of the Newcomers Help Page, but something strange is happening. The text that is already at the top of the NCP doesn't appear in the editing view, and when I added my paragraph to the top, it appears in an odd place. Could someone help me with this? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't support or need for a separate Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. So you should just remove that paragraph you wrote about it, people can ask get their article reviewed by asking here. Incidentally, the header is stored separately, at Template:NewcomersHeader or something.--Commander Keane 08:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it's a good idea! Somewhere where new users can ask what they could do better on articles, but far from a peer review. This page feels more about asking how to do the editing, rather than feedback on style or content. I think it should be kept! Henrik 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should be always careful when dealing with newbies, because they might feel discouraged pretty easily. How many article review questions do we get? I bet there are many users who think that is not the proper place; try to find it and don't find any proper place to do it. Fetofs ^Hello! 13:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

58.104.10.116 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk has several requests for feedback. I think a few Wikipedians should read the articles and offer feedback (and post some of their articles for feedback to keep the project going). It's no point having lots of people asking for feedback and no one offering any. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic questions

We have to expect to recieve a few off-topic questions every now and then, and I know they aren't really hurting anything. But the number of irrelevant questions is starting to get ridiculous, despite the clear instructions at the top of the page. Do you think it would help to ruduce the frequency of misdirected questions if we changed that big lavender button to something like this:

[Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia]

Of course, there is no way to stop them all, but maybe this change could reduce some of the clutter on the page. --TantalumTelluride 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much it would help, but it probably wouldn't hurt to try. -- Natalya 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the button is worth a try. Also, I have a feeling some people don't actually read the header, so how about a footer? We could make it a fancy template, or simply a commented out statement. — TheKMan^talk 12:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One comment: I'm not sure everyone interprets "using" as the intended "editing" - if they have no intention of contributing at all, "using" might very well mean "finding information" to them. Henrik 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. I didn't feel comfortable making that change without mentioning it here first. Regarding a footer, how would we be able to keep it at the bottom of the page? Everyone would try to put their questions underneath it. --TantalumTelluride 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Page rename suggestion

After making my comment above, I thought about it and came up with the following: What if we were to rename this page to New contributors help page instead of Newcomers help page? Any comments? Henrik 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, New contributors help page makes it clearer that this page is about help with editing Wikipedia.--Commander Keane 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. --TantalumTelluride 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Akamad 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! -- Natalya 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On a grammar note, should it be New contributors' help page? I know I'm being pedantic :-) Akamad 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Silly apostrophes! We should definitly make New contributors help page (sans apostrophe) a redirect, though, because I doubt many people will actually type the apostrophe in. -- Natalya 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok! I've moved the page now and hopefully fixed the double redirects it caused. But it'd be great if someone could double check :-) Henrik 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

People kept posting questions to the old page because we forgot to change the link in the purple box. I think I've got it all fixed now. That was quite a mess, though. I moved all the misplaced questions to the new page and left messages on the newcomers' talk pages showing them where their questions were. Everyone needs to keep an eye on the old page just in case we missed any other links like that one. --TantalumTelluride 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I completely forgot about that link. Thank you for sorting out the mess I appear to have made. :( Henrik 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar to Help Desk

How does this page differ from the Help Desk. Is the only difference that this page is targeted towards "New contributors" whereas the Help Desk is for everbody? Both pages are about asking how Wikipedia, editing works etc. I can't see any other difference! Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That was already discussed before... The conclusion was that there is actually no difference, but a merge would be prejudicial. If only I could find it... Fetofs ^Hello! 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is at least one [very] trivial difference that comes to mind. I, as a fairly experienced user (and one who answers many help desk questions), still come across situations for which I need help. I would not ask such questions here. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How stupid of me, it was discussed in the "Suggest merge..." section above and perhaps somewhere else. Fughettaboutit raises a good point but I doubt newbs would know the difference. Many of them despite WP's clear presentation still ask questions appropriate for the Reference Desk over here and on the Help Desk. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also nice because the New contributors' help page [hopefully] is less intimidating than the Help Desk, which allows new users to not be afraid of asking simple things about getting accustomed to Wikipedia. -- Natalya 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the key point. Having a separate area for newbies hopefully makes them feel less intimidated, that they may be "asking the wrong questions" on the Help Desk. —Estarriol ^talk 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-links/protocol

Go to my user page and make a copy of these, for other Wikipedians use, and your use as well. Martial Law 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Thanks Martial Law, just the sort of thing I'd been building for myself, only more complete. — Estarriol ^talk 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New template

You can use the new template {{answer}} to quickly and easily let people know you've answered their questions. --TantalumTelluride^♪ 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have removed NEWSECTIONLINK

I recieved a message on my talk page about removing the NEWSECTIONLINK from the article. I did that because it was showing up as article text. I found out that it's because I'm using the SSL interface to Wikipedia at secure.wikimedia.org. It does some funny things to the layout occasionally, so I didn't realise that it was that that was the problem. So I won't remove it again :) — Jeremy | Talk 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

signature

As a newbie I didn't know that the suggested signature was two dashes followed by 4 tildas (I don't know how to make this page show the tildas without having them converted to my signature) it just looked like a stream of tildas. Should the users be either referred to the signature definition page (I can't remember where it is) or told that the string of dashes and tildas is "two dashes and four tildas"? --Djfeldman 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You can tell the wiki software not to process text by using the nowiki tag. If you edit this section, you will see the tags around the example signature here: --~~~~. See Help:Editing for more information. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

tutorial/introduction links in header?

header suggestion, selfexplanatory. Thanks :) -Quiddity 05:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking participants on Requests for feedback

Several months ago, I created Requests for feedback, an initiative for new editors to seek feedback on new articles they write (or major edits they make to existing articles). This feedback will help them understand their strengths and weaknesses as an editor - for example, they may be excellent with screenshots and NPOV, but weak in referencing and linking. Hopefully they will use the feedback they receive to improve their editing skills and the articles they make.

I created RFF after trying to get feedback on two articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun (film), but finding established processes such as Peer Review and Requests for Expansion not meeting my needs. Traffic is growing and we currently receive a couple of requests for feedback from new editors daily. It seems my idea is popular among newcomers, and I intend to develop it into an established Wikipedia process.

Currently, there are only 4 Wikipedians who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted on RFF: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng. We will need more regular participants in this project; hopefully experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia process and friendly towards newcomers.

Many Wikipedians who respond to queries on the Newcomers' help page are likely to be "experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia process and friendly to newcomers". Therefore, I am posting here asking such Wikipedians to check out RFF, and, should they be interested, watch the RFF page and regularly respond to requests for feedback posted there.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOOB?

Rather insulting, what do you think? Fredil 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand "n00b" (and its related forms) are somewhat derogatory, on the other hand it's an easy shortcut to remember and it's not always taken in the derogatory form. I can see, perhaps, changing it to "WP:NEWB", but I don't think it's worth too much of hassle. Most of the newbies will miss it anyway. —Keakealani 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can have a shortcut without having to list it in the shortcuts section (WP:LFD is one I can think of at the moment). --ais523 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why WP:LFD? Or WP:BC? Fredil 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

'Lists for deletion' (although it took a full RfD to determine the meaning of that one) and 'Bootcamp'. --ais523 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other project

Hi, there is a similar project to this in the German wikipedia, look there at de:WP:BNW. Please add this to "other languages" on the main side, thanks...

 Done Tra (Talk) 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Drawing board

Hello all. Lately I've been the only one responding to posts on the Drawing board. I'm taking a wikibreak until August 1 and I'd not want queries to go waiting, so I'm hoping some other editors will be willing to lend a hand there. It would be good to have other perspectives besides my own for those editors seeking help even after I'm back. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I did not know that such a page existed. I would chip in there, but it's not really my sort of thing and I have quite a few watched help pages already; apart from NCH, I tend to hover around EA, RFF, etc. Have you posted at VPA? Adrian M. H. 09:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also was unaware that this page existed - learn something new every day. Sorry though at this moment i cannot help. --Edmund Patrick 10:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I stuck it on my watchlist. Pete St.John 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it....

You can now skip to the bottom of the page from a link that I added to the header. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: New archival setup

In the absence of any more discussion about the archival of NCH and the pressing need to make it easier and more frequent, I have added Miszabot to the project page and set it to archive every two weeks. In the unlikely event of any problems occurring, please let me know ASAP. If anyone thinks that we need a different schedule, or a different archive arrangement, feel free to change it. Adrian M. H. 10:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the archive number will need to be updated manually every 2 weeks to make the bi-weekly archive work. update every time the archive reaches 250K. Tra (Talk) 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested in the archival, I have manually archived July's content today, as Miszabot decided to pick out one section from the middle and failed to take anything earlier than that. I've removed the bot template and will stay with manual archival for the time being. Adrian M. H. 10:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot high priority

I took the liberty of adding Wikipedia:New contributors' help page to the bot's high priority list in order to avoid edit conflicts. Lemme know if there are any problems. --slakr^(talk) 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 10:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3