![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Bling | Content | Userboxen | Editcount | Talk | Guestbook |
Big Events |
This is where I archive threads that are mainly about Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion aka NEWT, a project that I started in October 2009, halted on the 23rd November 2009 and have sometimes had to explain since. I have also made some notes on this at:
Hi, I really appreciate your pointer to your bot proposal. Only through this I found the great discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users and your fascinating experiment. I have left my comment on the bot proposal page, and hopefully people would respond positively to it. Wondrousrecall ( talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi WereSpielChequers. I've been watching User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment with interest - it's a very informative (and, yes, depressing) experiment. Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention the thing about arbcom wanting test accounts to be reported to them at the top of the page? I'd do it myself were it not in your userspace. Cheers, Olaf Davis ( talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Would a caterpillar be an acceptable substitute? Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark bugs and goblins 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine; I get the impression that "a newbie has made an article, lets fix the mistakes made" was not, unfortunately, the common reaction. I won't be attending Sunday (public law essay to do, bleugh) but I'll be down in December, it looks like. Ironholds ( talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
When Netmouse signed up for the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members he mentioned this page: Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions Sometimes blowback can be a positive thing. Ikip ( talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You do know, once this experiment is stopped (which it already is, so I figured: "why oppose something that is already done?") then it will be very difficult to start it again without major controversy. Ikip ( talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(Note: I originally wrote this for a wider audience of editors, but decided against it and thought I'd ask you.)
Special:NewPages is in almost irreparable chaos. Managing both the backlog of unpatrolled pages and new ones flooding in is proving to be too much work for too little users working on it. Fewer articles are being removed from the backlog every day than are added to it the same day. This really is ugly and pressing. We need more people helping with it.
People have been pointing fingers at WP:NEWT for the unforeseen effects it had on the NPP process. It wasn't their intention, but it heaped a lot of stress onto the already loaded new page patrollers. It's a stressful job. There are hundreds of articles that go through Special:Newpages every day, and every one has to be tagged or patrolled or referenced or deleted. In a space of ten minutes you might get fourteen articles. Not every new user can be guided and helped up appropriately. While a warm welcome for every newbie is an ideal, efficiency is a necessity.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Bottom line: WP:NEWT became a project that challenged the patrollers from the newbie side. I'm proposing a collaboration of editors that will work from the patrollers' side to deal with new articles and users as they think they should. What do you think ? A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Just so you don't miss it on the discussion page, from WP:SOCK, Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion. Could you explain your justification for violating the policy here [1]?-- Crossmr ( talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello there,
I understand you have started the WP:NEWT initiative. I was pointed to it by an admin after I asked him where I should go to raise awareness about an apparent ambiguity in the guidelines for article semi-protection, which seems to be used lightly in some quarters, penalising the editing potential of unregistered users. You can find more details here and here.
I was wondering if you can suggest any actions, other than asking clarifications here (which I am planning to do) and, for this particular situation with chemical elements, asking each protecting admin to reconsider their decision.
Thank you. 114.148.187.244 ( talk) 08:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
I think that the idea behind WP:NEWT is a good one and we should run more experiments testing treatment of newbies in other areas - these kinds of tests help us figure out how to become better editors and how to develop a better working environment for everyone. Thank you for working on this! Awadewit ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
stifle marked Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion with the template historical [4]
The template:
...is this apt? Ikip 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:NEWT notice has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
07:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Bling | Content | Userboxen | Editcount | Talk | Guestbook |
Big Events |
This is where I archive threads that are mainly about Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion aka NEWT, a project that I started in October 2009, halted on the 23rd November 2009 and have sometimes had to explain since. I have also made some notes on this at:
Hi, I really appreciate your pointer to your bot proposal. Only through this I found the great discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users and your fascinating experiment. I have left my comment on the bot proposal page, and hopefully people would respond positively to it. Wondrousrecall ( talk) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi WereSpielChequers. I've been watching User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment with interest - it's a very informative (and, yes, depressing) experiment. Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention the thing about arbcom wanting test accounts to be reported to them at the top of the page? I'd do it myself were it not in your userspace. Cheers, Olaf Davis ( talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Would a caterpillar be an acceptable substitute? Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark bugs and goblins 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine; I get the impression that "a newbie has made an article, lets fix the mistakes made" was not, unfortunately, the common reaction. I won't be attending Sunday (public law essay to do, bleugh) but I'll be down in December, it looks like. Ironholds ( talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
When Netmouse signed up for the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members he mentioned this page: Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions Sometimes blowback can be a positive thing. Ikip ( talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You do know, once this experiment is stopped (which it already is, so I figured: "why oppose something that is already done?") then it will be very difficult to start it again without major controversy. Ikip ( talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(Note: I originally wrote this for a wider audience of editors, but decided against it and thought I'd ask you.)
Special:NewPages is in almost irreparable chaos. Managing both the backlog of unpatrolled pages and new ones flooding in is proving to be too much work for too little users working on it. Fewer articles are being removed from the backlog every day than are added to it the same day. This really is ugly and pressing. We need more people helping with it.
People have been pointing fingers at WP:NEWT for the unforeseen effects it had on the NPP process. It wasn't their intention, but it heaped a lot of stress onto the already loaded new page patrollers. It's a stressful job. There are hundreds of articles that go through Special:Newpages every day, and every one has to be tagged or patrolled or referenced or deleted. In a space of ten minutes you might get fourteen articles. Not every new user can be guided and helped up appropriately. While a warm welcome for every newbie is an ideal, efficiency is a necessity.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Bottom line: WP:NEWT became a project that challenged the patrollers from the newbie side. I'm proposing a collaboration of editors that will work from the patrollers' side to deal with new articles and users as they think they should. What do you think ? A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Just so you don't miss it on the discussion page, from WP:SOCK, Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion. Could you explain your justification for violating the policy here [1]?-- Crossmr ( talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello there,
I understand you have started the WP:NEWT initiative. I was pointed to it by an admin after I asked him where I should go to raise awareness about an apparent ambiguity in the guidelines for article semi-protection, which seems to be used lightly in some quarters, penalising the editing potential of unregistered users. You can find more details here and here.
I was wondering if you can suggest any actions, other than asking clarifications here (which I am planning to do) and, for this particular situation with chemical elements, asking each protecting admin to reconsider their decision.
Thank you. 114.148.187.244 ( talk) 08:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
I think that the idea behind WP:NEWT is a good one and we should run more experiments testing treatment of newbies in other areas - these kinds of tests help us figure out how to become better editors and how to develop a better working environment for everyone. Thank you for working on this! Awadewit ( talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
stifle marked Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion with the template historical [4]
The template:
...is this apt? Ikip 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:NEWT notice has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
07:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |