Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/Some examples of email welcomes

Some examples of possible e-mail welcomes

Please feel free to tweak any of these accordingly and . They are drafts.

Deleted article about individual

Dear <<username>>

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. My name is <<username, forename or pseudo-forename>>, an established editor on Wikipedia, and would like to offer my assistance.

I have now found the deleted article <<page>>, and looked into the reasons why it was deleted. Wikipedia can only publish articles about people who have secondary sources published about them. This is partly to protect you as an individual. Without sourcing, potentially anything can be written about you which may be biased or factually untrue.

The lack of sourcing can, however, be easily fixed, and we will endeavour to assist you in finding these. Some examples of what constitute reliable sources can be found here:

<http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources>

You are more than welcome to submit any of these to us, and we will help you shape the articles around them. We can also identify any problems with the sources and advise you accordingly. Our aim here is for you to get the most out of your article, while protecting you against incorrect information.

I look forward to hearing back from you. Please do not hesitate to ask about anything you are unsure of.

Yours sincerely,

<<username, forename or pseudo-forename>>
<<url to user page>>

Discussion

I like this Peter. Clearly part of the question will be whether the article was notable as well though I wonder if that's a discussion you want to have after they respond looking for help rather then at the front? I think you're right, in general we want to be short and sweet at the start so that we can give them some info and offer them help while not drowning everything out and making them give up. Obviously if it's clear vandalism etc our response would be different. Do we want to still reach out in that case but with a different message? I can see the 'waste of time' argument but I've certainly seen a not tiny amount of very active editors who started off with vandalism (or what we would classify as vandalism) so reaching out may still pay dividends. Jalexander--WMF 00:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is just one example of something we could use for a certain situation. Like we do on OTRS, a set of responses covering different situations can be developed. Generally, when these e-mail templates are used, they should only be used once; it's a short but polite introduction to the basics. After that, everything should be motivated towards individual questions and issues, at the person's own pace. Essentially it's like OTRS but we will step in to help with content issues rather than tell them to go somewhere else for help. That's the big advantage. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I talked to you on IRC right after you submitted this but never actually responded here like I wanted too so that everyone could see it. I totally agree with the idea, We don't want to scare them away and we can adapt everything to how they start to respond and that's one of the great benefits you have with a personal outreach the ability to do that adjusting depending on what the user needs. The best of OTRS can do that and the worst can sometimes lead to template hell. We obviously want to avoid template hell but reaching out with something specific to their situation and inviting them to both try again and ask questions could do wonders and then we take it from there. Jalexander--WMF 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't have the sysop userright might have a harder time pinpointing the problem of the article (notability, etc.), except for the edit summary. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With new users, speedy deletion is probably more common, and most admins note the criteria # in their summary. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 15:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rad suggn

No point sending this out at random; someone who just wrote "Bob sucks his willy, LOL" doesn't need this email. That said...assuming this is going to some new user writing something with a cat-in-hell-chance of being valid (N, V) then... I'd like it to be more personal, less 'coroporate-speak', less formal, less like a template.

The user has already presumably had template stuff; that has not helped.

So;

Hi, <<username>>!

I'm <<name (and not some weird nick; preferably e.g. Jane, Bob, etc>> a Wikipedia editor, just like you. We wikipedians are trying to make things easier for new users.

I saw that <<page>> was deleted, and wanted to try to help.

Wikipedia can be really harsh on new users. We try and keep it simple, but because it is so huge, we end up with so many rules, it can be difficult to get involved.

Basically: your article needed some references - to things like newspapers, or something. That would show why this thing is "notable", and therefore why we need an article about it (in the encyclopaedia).

If you can work with me, to find some "reliable sources" - like, newspapers or whatever...then I can help you get started.

Hope to hear from you soon,

That is a very rough draft and, no matter how it turns out, I would encourage a) users sending it to customize it , but b) (let's be sensible) for some kind of sanity-check to be performed before they're sent.

Originally posted here, Chzz ► 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reversed edits

Dear <<username>>

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. My name is <<username, forename or pseudo-forename>>, an established editor on Wikipedia, and would like to offer my assistance.

Wikipedia is a large resource with hundreds of editors making thousands of edits per day. Some of these edits are considered spam and graffiti and have to be removed quickly to keep Wikipedia a reliable resource. There are dedicated editors who read these edits every few minutes to spot and remove them. However, sometimes they are quick to remove edits that seem suspicious when they are really made in good faith but have some quirk that doesn't look right at a quick glance.

I have read through the edits you were trying to make and believe you were trying to help improve Wikipedia. I would like you stay and would be willing to help you through your first few articles.

If you would still like to try and help out, you can feel free to contact me through this email address or on my Wikipedia <<talk page>>. Or if you would like to try again without my assistance, please review the information on <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia>.

Yours sincerely,

<<username, forename or pseudo-forename>>
<<url to user page>>

My attempt. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Looks good! A clearer explanation of how edits get reverted and why is a good thing. I've seen people take reverting very personally indeed, and without a clear explanation, it scares people off. Something like this is great. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this looks great. This is a big thing for people and like deleted articles they look and are just totally confused about why "Wikipedia is denying my contributions". Something like this I think could be huge and incredibly helpful to reach out and try to explain it in a personal way. Jalexander--WMF 05:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]