Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 2

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluejean.  This newbie needs some help. -- 199.71.174.100 05:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: →Iñgōlemo← has taken good care of this newbie.  Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 21:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Bluejean 

message: Just wanted to announce a new welcome template:   
Because the existing welcome templates are so similar in design, I put together this template; I tend to be the second person to welcome a given user, and it offers information that the other templates don't, or at least don't explicitly. Also, by using the "yourusername" field, an automatic link to your talk page is included (because not everybody's signature links to thier talk page, and other's are very difficult to figure out.) All you have to do is add the template and sign it.
The template renders like this (with my user name and signature inserted):
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful: 
*Be Bold! 
*Don't let grumpy users scare you off. 
*Meet other new users 
*Learn from others 
*Play nice with others 
*Contribute, Contribute, Contribute! 
*Tell us about you 
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. 
We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·   Talk 09:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I actually propose to change the standard welcome with this brand new template :
 Wich is shown like this :
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:lavender; padding:0;"	Hello Welcoming committee! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Esurnir 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice-looking, but big and clunky. I don't see any chance of a replacement for . Λυδαcιτγ 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: How are folks actually finding new users at this point?  Watching special:recentchanges (but for what, new user pages?)?  Please post here how you actually find new users, if your technique has not already been posted.  Refinements would be interesting as well.  Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
* Watching Wikipedia:Help desk for questions from new users. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
* I'd like to use a database query, perhaps something like Special:Listusers&from=20050710152751 (the from string is a date), but this doesn't work.  Has anyone written this up as a feature request? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
*Watching Wikipedia:New user log is a good source, as is Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. -- Essjay ·   Talk 17:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't know if it works or not, but Special:Contributions/newbies is available. -- Essjay ·   Talk 17:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
*I target new Australian editors. As such, I rock up to any talk-page with a red link on my watchlist (which is quite extensive: 1300+ pages). -- Cyberjunkie TALK 10:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  how folks find new users 

message: Is a template available for the unregistered, one to encourage them to register as a Wikipedian? (See User talk:130.18.49.203 for an example.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I tend to use either  or  or even both.  is probably the better of the two.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For something more concise,  is good, too. HKT talk 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for the unregistered

message: Unsurpisingly, the Tutorial tends to grow as people add tips, mention exceptions, and put in explanations.  That's great except that a Tutorial needs to be short and clear so that people will actually read it.  I think it will require periodic pruning to keep it accessible to newcomers.
I've just done a bit of trimming on the first couple pages.  I intend to keep going through, but who knows if I'll get around to it.  In the mean time, others may want to take a look at what I did, and continue the work if you feel motivated.  The biggest project I have in mind is merging Related site links with External links.  I don't think related site links are important enough to a beginner to need their own page. Isomorphic 04:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutorial pruning

message: I noticed that many people paste a greeting that says something like "create your user page" and it links to Wikipedia:user page. I think it would a lot more useful to link it to their own user page. The link is very easy: your user page. That work especially well if they have a red user page. Renata3 14:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraging creation of user pages

message: Please provide feedback on a robot on Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Welcome_bot.  The robot's aim is to assist the welcome comittee and help newcomers.  Various degrees of automation can be achieved. 67.60.52.155 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome program 

message: I've created a babel-esque user button for the WC.
 is:
Sceptre 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! As a collector of these (I've tried to limit myself), I appreciate it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome Sceptre 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Thanks for doing this. It's my favorite color, too. Acetic'Acid 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I was bored, so I had to find something to do :) Sceptre 19:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WC? *Smirk* </school boy humor> --TimPope 10:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User button 

message: I've noticed that several members of the Welcoming Committee have been welcoming users who haven't even edited anything yet. Is that something that we really want to do? I mean, if we're going to welcome everyone with the same standard template, we might as well have the text appear automatically on their talk pages. (As I understand it, that would be no problem at all for the developers.) But it seems as though the primary goal of the Welcoming Committee is to encourage unique, personal welcome messages, which are not possible if the newcomers haven't even done anything yet. If we just wait and let them edit first, we can give them tips, suggest WikiProjects, point them to policies or guidelines that they might be interested in, etc. Creating thousands of talk pages for users who will never contribute anything at all just seems like a waste of server space. Should there be a guideline that we hold off on the welcomes until the users show that they are actually interested in helping? --TantalumTelluride 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you're right! I like the idea --Neigel von Teighen 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with you.  I don't much like template greetings, and don't see the point in welcoming anonymous editors (who may be dynamic IPs anyway) or new accounts that haven't contributed anything yet. But I may be in the minority.  Isomorphic 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to wait for an edit by anons but definitely say hello to registered users who havent edited.  Clearly they put in a small amount of effort in registering, so its safe to welcome them at this point (and I don't think dev's should do this, because its impersonal).--Urthogie 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome users who haven't edited a lot. I feel it encourages new users to edit rather than just not bother and leave their account unused. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between "haven't edited a lot" and "haven't edited".  I don't know why this happens, but there are definitely people who create an account and never edit a single page with it.   Isomorphic 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting (perhaps worrying) fact: this link:  shows the new user page with an offset of 150 000 users. At the time of writing this post, the page shows users created on the 28th of November, 2005. Therefore, from the 28th of November to the 9th of January, approximately a 150 000 new accounts have been created (which according to the stats page is 20% of all accounts). If you were to look at the contributions of 5 random accounts from that page, there are good odds at least 4 of them have not yet contributed. This issue was discussed on the anti-vandal irc channel a few days ago. - Akamad 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to throw in, from the last dump, about 28000 registered accounts made their first edit to a main namespace article in December.  These accounts weren't necessarily created in December -- can't get that from the dumps -- but, the 4/5 non-contributors guess seems in the right ballpark.  -- ForteTuba 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming users who haven't edited yet 

message: Could the welcomming message ask these new user to visit Wikipedia:Wikipedians so that we can add these users to categories of wikipedians by .... That would be a nice practice to figure out where is help in certain subject on WP. 132.204.207.108 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about including that in my welcomes, but I'm not so sure we need to encourage brand new users to edit the Category namespace. I think a lot of miscategorizaion would be avoided if we let new users gain some experience with the Wikipedia system before encouraging them to edit categories (or templates, for that matter). Besides, Wikipedia:Wikipedians is a very confusing page that might scare away some new users. The page constantly contradicts itself by saying "List yourself here" and then saying "Don't list yourself; use a category instead." It might be a good idea, though, to encourage experienced users who haven't been categorized under :Category:Wikipedians yet to categorize themselves. --TantalumTelluride 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It only made sense to me after a month of experience at wikipedia.  Don't overload new users, should be a wikipedia rule, hehe--Urthogie 17:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]] 

message: See template talk:welcome-anon for details. TerraGreen 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, if I see any anons with lots of good edits I will use it! -Ravedave 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new templates for welcoming anons 

message: Hi everyone. I recently remembered I was a member of the Welcoming Commitee and I realized I haven't helped at all with this project, so I decided to welcome some new users. I was wondering is possible to over welcome? I know this might seem like a stupid question but is it ever possible to overdue myself when giving out welcomes? — Moe ε 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over welcoming?

message: I believe myself still too new (~ 1 month)to (safely) be of much assistance to newbies.  However, FWIW, I have created a page at Wikipedia:Starter toolset to help dedicated newbies start off on the right foot.
—>normxxxtalk—>  email 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Provided Resource for Others 

message: I noticed that we're getting a lot of members (can't really be a bad thing ^_^).  Perhaps we could have a monthly roll call to maintain a shorter, but active list? Deckiller 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of members (like myself) get caught up in editing other things and neglect their WC duties for a while. However (like myself, again), we always get around to welcoming when we're in the mood. :o) Of course, you're right- as new members of Wikipedia continue to increase at a greater rate, Welcoming Committee members must remain diligent and active. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Present. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur that the monthly roll call is probably way over the top... maybe not so bad every six months or so. Like Jokermage, I generally welcome sporadically, save for discovering edits by someone who hasn't been greeted--those I make time to greet. The WP.AMA about drove me nuts with a new roll call every six weeks or so back when they were reorganizing.   OTOH, maybe would be a good idea to elect a co-ordinator and systematize welcoming with a voluntary sign-up to welcome by date sort of cyclic thing. Have a sub-page with sign up dates and a template normally filled by a call to {{tl|void} or  when inactive, and a little banner ad that pops out for a news tid-bit... 'Welcoming Committee needs greeters 5th, 13th, 14th 15th, 18th-22nd and 24-31st next month' Please take a date and fill one of these gaps WT:Wc/s or some such. Nothing about a schedule need make the duty onerous--it's a gentleman's agreement like helping out on the help desk. Say the coordinator and an assistant or two to handle messages, and issue a reminder the day before an about a week before that User:X has taken such and such a date. We'd need some sort of tracking user category 'Wikipedian contributing editor since Year-Month', which could be embedded in the welcome templates to give a list of those greeted, for comparison to the new user list, but should be NBD. // FrankB 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll call? 

message: If you want, play with us Welcome look for WikiRPG. This is something like RPG and - I promise it will be very funny and very useful too :) Przykuta 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming like a quest :) 

message: I thought the welcoming committee might be interested in this factoid about the possible effect of welcomes.  This is based on the Jan 25 dump.  (I'm doing analysis because I'm studying how a tool I'm writing that suggests pages to edit based on prior edit history affects people's behavior.)
 
* Take people on WP whose first edit was in Dec 2005, 28000-ish people.
* Group them based on whether they have the word "welcome" on their user talk page or not as of Jan 25.
* Look at how many edits each person made in the first four weeks after their first edit.
* Average edits per person in the "welcome" group: 26.  In the "no welcome" group: 7.
There are plenty of possible confounds:
* Some people delete welcomes from their talk page.  To be more accurate I should look at page history.
* Not all welcomes are "welcome"; some are "you're welcome".  But, probably not many.
* Welcomes are often reserved for "good" contributors, while people who make copyvios, create odd articles, etc., often get slapped down instead of welcomed.  So there's some bias toward good editors in who gets welcomed.
* Edit counting is a poor proxy for value/quality.
* The edit counting tool filters non-main namespace edits and some user accounts (notably those that look like ips and contain "bot" in the name).
* I could have made mistakes.
Still, it suggests that welcomes are pretty powerful, and I thought I should share.
-- ForteTuba 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the data. :o) It's a tad hard to interpret, though, since there are so many confounding variables. Also, I do a lot of welcoming of anon-ip users, inviting them to get a user account. So, in a way, I'd actually like it if those users never edited again under their IP, but rather took up my offer and did the rest of their editing under a user name. Either way, it seems like we're doing a good job (or at least picking good editors to welcome). P.S.- Great user name! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few numbers about the positive effects of welcoming. 

message: Created as a variant of , but it has links to the highways and U.S. Roads wikiproject. Use for users who are editing road pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|welcomeroad}}

message: Getting tired of sending grettings to every newbies? An enhancement request has been made to bugzilla (see bugzilla:3456). This request mediawiki to add new system message which can be filled out with the welcome template. The idea is to make mediawiki automatically send welcome message to user after being created. Another alternative is to disable the automatic redirection of welcome page so that welcome message can be put in Mediawiki:welcomecreation and people can have the sufficient time to read it since the redirection is off.
borgx (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that part of the welcoming is that is gives them someone to ask questions of. -Ravedave 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, humans can welcome people to a community of humans much better, and can provide links to pages that the editor might be interested in. A similar discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_12#Welcome_bot. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Worst. Idea. Ever. Isomorphic 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting tired? 

message: I have gone to welcome a few users who I have seen making new edits on some of the pages on my watchlist. I have seen one or two that have welcome messages left on their user pages. I just wanted to clarify: generally welcome messages go on people's talk pages, not the user pages, correct? Thanks, I'm new to this welcoming thing. Jessamyn (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, welcome messages should go on user talk pages so that the recipient will get one of those scary little orange bars at the top of his or her screen. --TantalumTelluride 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a message, yes, it goes to the talk page.  Keep in mind that they may want to personalize their user page. Michael 08:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  welcome on user pages? 

message: I would like to introduce to you the WikiWelcome Lei. The WikiWelcome Lei is to be presented as a welcoming gift for new user's arrival to Wikipedia. Like the WikiThanks it is not an award. The WikiWelcome Lei is meant to be given in conjuction with a welcome message. Please let me know what you think. I think it adds a more personal and fun touch to welcome messages. Also, feel free to upload new versions of the lei that are of a clearer resolution quality. Thanks.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we get a thousand new users a day, each with the lei on their talk pages, that would severely slow the servers in at most a month. Maybe not a good idea for everyone to do. Jfingers88 05:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the new user log, and it looks like there were about 1000 users created in 4 hours. I'd be very careful with the lei. Jfingers88 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a new idea reagarding the lei. Instead of sending it with the welcome message I will simply put a link to it but "present it in a similar fashion here.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this new idea. It both provides a welcoming touch and keeps it in only one place. Good job. I might consider adding it to my welcome messages. Jfingers88 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If this becomes popular, I will consider moving it to its own page.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWelcome Lei 

message: If anyone is interested, here is a custom javascript to add a "welcome" tab to the edit page of a user talk which has no text in it already (i.e. a new user).
// 
window.onload = Main;
function Main() {
    addactions();
}
function addactions() {
    addwelcome();
}
function addwelcome() { 
    if(!document.editform) return;
    var txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1;
    var url = window.location;
    if(txt.value.length == 0) {
        if (url.search.indexOf("User_talk:") != -1) {
            var tabs = document.getElementById('p-cactions').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
            if(document.title.indexOf("Editing") == 0) addlilink(tabs, 'javascript:welcome()', 'welcome', 'ca-welcome');
        }
    }
}
function welcome() {
    document.editform.wpSummary.value = 'Welcome!';
    document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = false;
    document.editform.wpWatchthis.checked = false;
    var txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1;
    if(txt.value.length > 0) txt.value += '\n';
    txt.value += '{{subst:welcome}}--~~~~';
    document.editform.wpSave.focus();
}
function addlilink(tabs, url, name, id) {
    var na = document.createElement('a');
    na.href = url;
    na.id = id;
    na.appendChild(document.createTextNode(name));
    var li = document.createElement('li');
    li.appendChild(na);
    tabs.appendChild(li);
    return li;
}
// 
Feel free to use it if you're interested! Put it in your Special:Mypage/monobook.js, or whichever skin you use. (Written by :Uncyclopedia:User:Splaka and :Uncyclopedia:User:Villahj Ideeut) --Keitei (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't get it to work for some reason. Do you know why? I did put it in the right js, in case you were wondering. Where would the "tab" be, at the top with the edit tab? Jfingers88 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshot of the tab It's on the editing page. Click this link: User_talk:Randomuser - it should be next to the tabs on the top at the far right. --Keitei (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh also, you don't need the first code and nowiki tabs. --Keitei (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I still can't seem to get it to work. I don't know why. Care to check it out? User:Jfingers88/monobook.js Jfingers88 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript! 

message: Howdy, professional welcomers!  I'd like the assistance of an experienced Wikipedian in opening contact with User:Edemerell.  I stumbled across this user via College of Visual Arts, and if you check the history of that article, you might start to get an idea why this is sticky.  It gets worse; the lead (not written by User:Edemerell) is a copyvio from the college website.  I'd like to start talking to this guy before slamming the page with a copyvio warning; depending on what he can do with respect to the college's copyrighted material, we may be able to get it under a free license.  The stuation is tricky enough that I don't want to handle it all by myself.  Anyway, I've watchlisted both the article and his user page; if someone wants to leave me a message on my talk page, that would be excellent.  Many thanks in advance, --CComMack 12:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on user's talk page Jessamyn (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: A template that I made to address the problem of the impersonal quality of  and its variants. Includes a custom thank you and topic-specific portal recommendation, and works for both users and anonymous editors. Feel free to use it yourself. TheJabberwock 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the part that says, "My name is Dan. AKA The Jabberwock". You need to put an option like "My name is ", or else everybody who uses it will have "TheJaberwock" in their welcome. The only way for people to remove that is if they copy it to their userspace, but some people don't want to do that.--GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 02:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TheJabberwʘck 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Iamthejabberwock/Welcome]] 

message: I recently created my own welcome template (User:Evan Robidoux/Welcome) and I would like to know if I should add things, remove things or change things before I start using it. Thanks! --Evan Robidoux 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest using SUBST: before the PAGENAME. Also, depending on how you plan to welcome people, you may wish to include a  variable to reference which article you saw them edit. And you may wish to add a "welcomer" (see above) to your monobook.js. TheJabberwʘck 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome template 

message: Cross pollination: I am trying to start a small, informal Newbie Checker group on the Commons, pretty close to a welcoming committee. ;) We have a WelcomeBot in the form of User:Orgullobot. It's useful because it identifies the actually active newbies, as opposed to just everyone who signed up with an account. For me, the motivation is more in making sure they're following licensing requirements than making them feel welcome, because the earlier we catch 'em the better. :) Thought folks here might be interested though. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the Commons 

message: On May 13, I welcomed a new user (Garret21) who created an article (Garret Meyers) which was later deleted. Before it was deleted, I found that article and saw a speedy deletion tag. After seeing it, I went to his talk page and asked him if the page was meant to be a user page instead of an article, but after leaving the message, I felt that it might be an intimidating message and asked HighwayCello and Srikeit what I should do. They told me to explain the concept of user pages to the user. I got worried about this because I felt the new user would feel intimidated at this, too. So I decided to clear up the situation by saying "never mind." Of course, he might not have liked the idea of his page getting deleted. And today, I overcame my fear of this and explained the concept. But I feel like it is too late now because he hasn't edited ever since then and I think that he may have been driven away from Wikipedia. This has been giving me a lot of stress and I fear that I may have to give up on ever becoming an admin, which is upseting me because I have been working hard to reach this goal since late February. Please help me.
--Evan Robidoux 02:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about it. He was probably just a one time vandal who didn't know anything about wikipedia and decided to write an article about himself. And for all we know he could have gone and created another account by now. It sure sounds like you have a lot of wikistress. You should consider taking a wikibreak or joining Esperanza. — ßottesiηi (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneasy feeling 

message: User:Emijrp/Welcome! is a list of user that have edited in WP but they haven't been welcome. What is it a good limit? 5 or more edits? 10? --Emijrp 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say don't waste time mechanically welcoming. Far better to look at articles on your watchlist for real helpful edits, and give a thoughtful and personalized welcome to those editors. Λυδαcιτγ 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but there are editors that find newcomers in the new users log. This list gives 100% users with edits. --Emijrp 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I know, but if that's how you find them, why not have a machine do it? It would save effort. Some of those edits may be fluff or vandalism. If you must mechanically welcome, at least take the time to look through their contributions or userpage (if they have one) and say something personalized. Λυδαcιτγ 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really wanted to, you could find a user, take a look at his edits, and then base a personalized welcome off of that. Although I still prefer to find them by accident. My welcome template, an amalgam of several others, has a personal message space which I usually fill with "I noticed your edits on whatever, and I think this. Furthermore, if you'd like to find like-minded Wikipedians, you might consider looking here." - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the personal touch is important here.  It shows that someone thought that they're doing something right and cares enough to want them to stay.  An automated welcome would reduce the impact of the message (and, if we wanted to automate it, why not just put the information on the "create account" page?).  JYolkowski // talk 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is someone interested in that? 

message: I just signed myself on the Welcoming Committee. The thing is that I'm really confused how I find out who is a newcomer and who isn't. Is each Committee member assigned someone once they create their account? Or am I actually supposed to search for new users? I would appreciate any help I can receive. --walkingencyclopedia 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That there is a newcomers list needs mentioned here. Does anyone know it off the top of their head? I thought I'd a link to it but couldn't find it just now.  this is nearly (maybe better!) as good though--and the red talks stand right out. Is it just me, or should a lot of this page be split off an archived. // FrankB 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have no idea how this works. 

message: If one day there is a page established about how offline users can
best contribute to wikipedia without blowing their phone bill, please
notify me at jidanni at jidanni.org.
Offline users can't stay on line experimenting, and would rather use
batch modes like WWWOFFLE to upload finished works.
Also some pages have tons of "In other languages" links... wish I
could trim most via Preferences.
--User:Jidanni 2006-07-24
:I like this idea. - CheNuevara 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  establish advice page for offline users 

message: 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 members of the Welcoming Committee 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)
thread_title:  Seeking participants on [[WP:RFF|Requests for feedback]] 

message: Hi there. I think the actions of existing users contributing to the Brighton article have been misunderstood by the new user User:Brightonkid and the whole thing has got off to the wrong foot. (I think he/she has also been editing through IP addresses as well.) In fact his/her edits have quickly become involved in a mediation. I'd be really grateful if someone could welcome Brightonkid to Wikipedia to show the world of Wikipedia means no harm and we're all quite friendly. I don't want to welcome him/her myself as my gesture might be misunderstood. Thanks! --Seaweed 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to welcome a new user 

message: I've found Wikipedia to be pretty hostile to new editors (at least that's been my experience). I received no welcome on my talk page and was bitten quite nastily (by editors and admins who should have known better) for small mistakes. I've found that much of Wikipedia adheres to "mob rule" and censorship by intimidation is not uncommon. This last bit led me to prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a reference in my (graduate) students' papers and assignments and to encourage other educators to do the same. This is potentially a viable project but as long as wikigangs prowl the pages, attacking editors who try to maintain POV, the prospects for an unbiased and up-to-date presentation of information are slim. I have met some nice, friendly and helpful people on Wikipedia, but they have been a small minority. I guess my point is that if this committee is welcoming only users who make the type of edits the individual members of the committee like (seems the case from reading this page), then the members of this committee are using the funtioning of this committee, not to actually welcome people, but to encourage particular editors and discourage others. Instead, it might be a good idea to welcome all editors in order to help everyone learn the wikiway :)  DrL 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. So would you be in favor of a welcome bot? Λυδαcιτγ 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am in favor of all editors being welcomed to Wikipedia, not just a subgroup selected somewhat randomly by individual members of the WC (based at least in part on whether or not they liked the newbie's edits). If that takes a welcome bot, well, okay. WC members can then go in and follow up, introducing themselves and seeing how newbies are doing, at their leisure. Not everyone will get this personal follow-up, but at least everyone gets some kind of a basic welcome and direction to newbie resources. DrL 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess, although I don't remember, is that when you create a username you are given some of the relevant links. This, though, is not a real welcome, and neither would a bot message. A vandal, for example, would get the welcome message. I would say introduce the policies automatically, but leave the welcoming to the real poeople. Λυδαcιτγ 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Hey, I just joined the Welcoming Committee and was wondering if there was a Userbox to put on my Userpage.  I know that I've seen one, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks!
Caesar 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it's right above at . Jfingers88 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or a nice graphical version: . Λυδαcιτγ 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Hi fellow members, just to let you know I have proposed an award for the welcoming committee's members who tirelessly welcome new users with lots of WikiLove. You can find my proposal here. I welcome you to vote on the idea on the proposal page, and possibly even create a nice design for it. Thanks! Jam01 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Welcoming committee Award! 

message: I request all WC members who are also RC patrollers, to make a special effort to welcome all anon users who are seen helping remove vandalism. Thanks, Rama's arrow 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming anons 

message: The Welcome page has been merged into the Introduction for a few weeks now. If someone familiar with the welcome templates could update them all to remove/replace that link, though would be great :) Thanks. --Quiddity 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome, newcomers - merged with introduction - templates need updating

message: I'm not a member of the welcoming committee, but when I see someone edit a page on my watchlist I generally give them a welcome on their talk page (without using any templates or anything). Today's example is User:Brafield who I think needs some help understanding the NPOV & encyclopedic nature of wikipedia - how do I request someone to add appropriate guidelines etc to their talk page? Is there a function to do this?— Rod talk 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I just put "Please try to write in the neutral point of view and in the tone of an encylopedia" or something.  But there also templates, such as  and others at warning templates. Cbrown1023 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome & prompt a new user 

message: I just tried welcoming someone, using the template I found: 
It's completely broken. Go try using it in the sandbox or something. The part that is supposed to link back to your talk page is all wrong, it spits out ugly code that the reader sees. And it doesn't seem to "subst" at all. Here's what it actually leaves behind (if you go back and hit edit):

And that has a weird edit link in the results, so that the new user's talk page now has an edit link that appears to actually edit the original template itself! Big trouble, if I'm understanding this correctly. -- Coelacan | talk 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page at Template_talk:Welcome-anon seems to have both of these complaints already, worded a little differently; those people might make more sense than I do. I'd have a go at fixing it but templates way are beyond me. -- Coelacan | talk 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I just tried it on the Wikipedia:Sandbox sandbox and it appears to work OK. Is it going now? Yuser31415 reply!|contribs 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took it to the sandbox and it's doing exactly what I described above. I was fussing and exaggerating when I said "completely broken". Hyperbole is my strong suit. But go use it and look closely at the results. When you get down to the part where your talk page link is supposed to show up, look at the ugly code barf there. And then click on the section edit link and see where it takes you. I checked your sandbox edit and it looks like you did get the result I got, but you have to look closely. — Coelacan | talk 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is a very simple problem: Welcomeanon-meta allows you to put a variable called "1", which is the username (). Welcome-anon-from has also the same syntax and manages its own variable "1" for username and then redirects to Welcomeanon-meta... Where's the problem? The redirection used in the Welcome-anon-from code:  ( means that variable 1 must be placed there) (before, it said  instead of User_talk, but it's the same). What happens here? Let's say I use the template this way , then, as variable 1 = Imaglang, so the redirect will be . Now we see the problem: Welcomeanon-meta will treat 1 as the whole my talk page thing, so, where the username was to be placed, it will appear the whole link... Simple. The solution would be to change the redirect in Welcome-anon-from to , but it would result in having two indentically working templates... It would be better to delete Welcome-anon-from. --Neigel von Teighen 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some welcome templates are messed up 

message: I'm concerned that this user is using the WC for disruptive purposes. He continues to flood new user pages with a welcome message without discrimination (please see his talk page and contribs). He's welcomed users that don't exist, blatant vandals, and many, many users that have not even contributed to WP yet. He seems to just be welcoming based on the new user creation log. Gzkn 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what the problem is.  Users have to exist to show up in the new user creatoin log.  I used to do that, but now I just welcome them when I see a blank talk link in the recent changes.  What's the problem?  How is that disruptive? Cbrown1023 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is definately disruptive and not a very good editor, but that does not have anything to do with the Welcoming Committee.  I think a better place for this is ANI. Cbrown1023 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) I don't think that's too bad - I used to do that (when my edit count was under 1000, it's over 5000+ now) but soon stopped when I found out I was welcoming vandals sometimes. Currently, I only welcome users who've had a blank talk page and make good edits to articles. However, I think it's fine, but Asher Heimermann needs to be a bit more careful about who he/she welcomes. As a vandal fighter myself, I know that no amount of welcome messages will stop a determined vandal from vandalizing, but it does help new users who are here for good purposes. More prudence, I think would be good. (I'm just commenting on his/her practice of welcoming, not on any other edits he/she may have done). –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prudence - I think Asher Heimermann needs to slow down a bit. This diff isn't good, especially considering that the user was a good user and had even reverted vandalism. I think the user is too hasty. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{User|Asher Heimermann}} 

message: This is what I do, but is this actually what we're supposed to do? I just welcome 10-20 users per day, from this page, regardless of whether they've made edits or not. Is this OK :? Yuser31415@? 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the practice is well meaning, but the problem is often many of the welcomed accounts are used only for vandalism. I used to do that myself, until I found so many were being used to vandalize. Currently, I welcome if I see a user's redlink in the edit history of an article, and if that user's edit was a good one. �-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see ... But shouldn't we welcome vandals as well? I mean, if we welcome them, they might get off to a good start instead of a bad vandalising one ... Yuser31415@? 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly as well, but my conclusion after using the new user log for a while is that a Welcome message usually doesn't deter a vandal from vandalizing. Partly, because of the common misconception that welcome messages or bot-posted. Usually, vandalism account are created because the user wishes to circumvent a semi-protection policy, and the user already knows what he/she wants to do. (see the history of Atlantic Records for an example). My hope is that it will help, but I'm not sure if it does.  –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming users from [[Special:Log/newusers]] 

message: User:Mrn3 needs some gentle help in understanding policies. He's created a page called Wheelchair Organizations, which I feel is more like a yellow pages than an encyclopedia article. Could someone more proficient than me help him? See his contributions. Thanks, Yuser31415@? 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User needs help 

message: well ive seen how people have been welcomed now that ive had some time to explore and figure out how to use wikipedia. but i am very unhappy theat i didnt get welcomed. i wanted to join to fight vandalism on wiki because i had some bad vandalism on some of the things i was researching so i joined and assumed that i would be welcomed and somone would tell me how and what to do but even to this day i have gotten no messages and have had to figure it out for myself. 
sincerly,
an unhappy user,
flink the blind hemophiliac 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can help.  It's not as easy as it looks.  On any given day, there might be a couple or more people rigorously greeting new users.  They are faced with a veritable flood of new accounts being created each day.  Many thousands of these accounts are extras - that is, they are created by veterans for various purposes (some valid, some not).  But it is almost impossible to tell these accounts from new user accounts.  So, the greeters are stuck with welcoming them all!  There are tools to assist with this task, such as AutoWikiBrowser, but even with that it is almost impossible to reach everyone.  We welcome all the help we can get.  The Transhumanist 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unhappy user 

message: I run HagermanBot, which is a bot for signing unsigned comments left on talk pages. Recently, the bot has begun leaving a  template on the user's talk page if they leave 3 or more unsigned comments in a  24 hour period. NoSeptember has expressed some concern about leaving the template on a user's talk page who hasn't been properly welcomed. How would everyone feel about a bot generated list that would show all users who have left 3 or more unsigned comments and haven't been welcomed? The idea would be that editors could check the list regularly and then leave a welcome message as well as a blurb on how to sign comments on talk pages. Anyone care to offer some feedback? Thanks! Hagerman(talk) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this idea. Yuser31415 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot List 

message: ;Xpost from: User_talk:Anthony_cfc#Upsetting_edits
Hi, you recently made a major content change and essentially hijacked WP:WC/Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee from a perfectly good, and much more useful version , which I drop essentially all the time when welcoming newcomers. In point of fact, until the people running HELP (or working on welcome templates) get their head out of their rear, this was one of the few places a newbie could find a link to Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page. They insist on hiding it on the main help, and I'm disappointed in the extremis that your bright version hasn't got it either.   That namecase variant version was specifically tailored to give newbies help links, and a navigation link to WP:Welcoming committee and it's members. It also linked to admins and iirc, some other good stuff that would be helpful to someone in this sad state. I cannot see that this gaudy version is anything but the variant (WP:Wc). I hate reverts, but overwriting a page without discussing it has me going for one here. Sorry. I edited it just a few short days ago, so courtesy would have been to at least ask me, or let me know it was being discussed for major change somewhere. Best regards // <B>Fra</B>nkB 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor (User:Anthony_cfc) wants discussion and permission to fancy up that page again, much like his user and user talk pages, based on what I reverted. Please join us on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee (note the BIG 'C') as I think style and tradition is a problem on that. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page was unilaterally transformed 

message: Request for a new welcome template, for obvious cases of people writing about themselves/their companies. Would need to link to WP:COI and maybe WP:AUTO. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI/Autobio welcome 

message: ;Three new section posts made up above: 
# Quiddity's post, immediate section above...
# 04:38, 9 February 2007 #I have no idea how this works. - (Here's a link to find red talks and users) FrankB
# 04:22, 9 February 2007 Fabartus #Roll call? - (How about a loose schedule to greet and cover the list of newbies systematically.)
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#A_few_numbers_about_the_positive_effects_of_welcoming. Section 25 is also worth a second look, albeit a year old now.
:Please take a moment to look those over, and the new section below I have adding this above since I forgot to sign like a newbie! <g> // FrankB 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four posts today Watchlister watchers! 

message: The time spread and timeline is all over the map as one reads down top to bottom as I have just done, not having done so for a long while. Perhaps we need a 'timeless FAQ' sub-page and archive the rest that's stale. Anybody got some spare time?   Or maybe a 'Top section' with 'Common timeless concerns and answers', and a Jump-to link down to current non-stale business. More, I think the Werdnabot with a three to six month time test would do the job well, insofar as keeping stale stuff off the page without additional man-power. The   directive would preserve and skip those sections with good information in that hypothetical top section, and a FAQ page would require human judgement to add 'Good things' in any event, if that is the groups leaning. Can we have some discussion? // FrankB 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it.  Feel free to jump in and help.  If there's anything I change or add which you don't like, please feel free to modify it in any way you see fit.  I welcome all cooperation and feedback, and will do my best to adapt to all input in a positive constructive way.  Let's build upon each other's contributions.  I look forward to working with everyone on the Welcoming committee.  The Transhumanist 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. The Transhumanist 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest we discuss housekeeping this page 

message: This just seems to detract from the mission statement.  Sure, it helps newcomers, but it should really be on a help page or tip page or something:
: This is as good a place as any to note that Wikipedia has different 'Name Spaces', or equivalently, database categorized spaces. 'Wikipedia'  prefixed spaces are where we administer or talk about administering Wikipedia itself. There are other spaces, see your preferences tab, and look at how you can define 'Searching' in the list by checking some of these or unchecking some. Special pages also allow you to select looking at just one set among the many you may find yourself working and posting to someday.
A similar tip can be found at Wikipedia:Tips. The Transhumanist 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following comment seems really out of place on the project page 

message: :: I'm pretty strongly with The Transhumanist on this... BOT greetings are too impersonal. Someone will come along eventually, at random and be savvy enough to drop a greeting, BUT... No reason to not work smarter and use a BOT to organize THAT part. 
:: So let's step outside the box a bit -- a once a day BOT run or maybe every six hours at most, have the BOT instead build a page and tabulate new users using one of the user templates (contribs--talk-user pages at least), and have that run down listed on a daily page that gets recylced modulo 31— and a little sooner for shorter months. (Assumption--with better organization, any team can greet all those greetable in one month's joint efforts.) Have an small discrete 2-3 line alert banner template on our talks posting number of ungreeted users in the month, the last two weeks, and each of the last seven days. See the AMA template on my talk for one that uses this sort of technique.
:: ##### • ### • ### *— ### • ### • ### • ### • ### • ### • ###
::where the ####'s are all links to the daily page needing the action/attention. I'm personally not concerned whether someone gets welcomed in their first day or even three, but I  figure inside a week, would be reasonable. My recollection is when I went from edits as an anom, to active article expansions as a registered user, it took about three days or so before I was greeted, and another day or two for a second greeting. 
::My reason for coming here today is related... with all those welcome templates, there is "not a one" geared to Belated Welcome and message, which I guess I'd apply after a few months or down to two weeks depending on contribs patterns to anyone that skipped under the radar, so to speak. ( and  are so much alike my head was spinning!) Contribs peeking can let each of us see if someone has overlapping interests, and anyone that peeks first, might add a phrase like 'editing science', 'edit computer games'... etc. [([[More on belated greetings here)]
::In addition to that, I'd like to see us target at least two greeters per newbie... so we sign off when we 'greet one', and someone adds their sig to ours on the second occasion. Two editors greeeting the same user a 'second' time may occur once in a while, but all to the good (My condolences on the edit conflict, but I have faith you'll survive the stress, oh great number two greeter! <g>). If the newcomers daily page is arbitrarily sectioned by scores, say, or tens... we can all edit our comments and sign without any (troublesome) edit conflicts, much as many people can be editing sections on TFD, CFD, etc. (no, I won't claim none -- just no troublesome one's! <g>)
::That all assumes we can get a BOT at all, but for a once a day run, I consider that far, far more likely than constant polling--to use a computer term. The biggest flaw in the big lists is that they are so damn big. But by having some kind of a 'sign off', cross off, and trying to find people of common bent may well interest more people into helping, and then their is the vandalism aid we can give.   Looking at 5-6 diffs is something I generally do to see what a person has been contributing so as to better couch my personal sentence (or three or five) when I actually post. Taking the time to check those diffs usually writes a potential paragraph 'in my head' going in, so I can just edit that down when saying Hi,and etc.! For that reason, if this concept carries I would suggest the contribs link be customized to only list twenty--saves a lot of parsing, server time with a much briefer delay, and twenty is more than enough to see if a newbie is asking questions, talking to someone already, what they are editing, and all those 'Feel for them' kinds of things.
::I just snuck this into the main template intro section on wikipedia:templates. In the words of Haley mills in a long ago movie: a scathingly brilliant idea, if I do say so myself! <G>
:::One set of templates which everyone needs to use more often are  these, for we must all always recollect and keep in mind how difficult was the 'new' and how scary we found our first edit forays.
::So cross your fingers and maybe we can generate some help and maybe even a new member or so! Along with my disdain for professional liars like politicians, con men and other advertising types of bottom dwellers rubbing elbows with ambulance chasing lawyers, there is no question in my mind that advertising makes for success... hence the counts should work. I'm apparently feeling bold along those lines since I dropped in here, as I further added this to our templates collection page:
::: For more about the Welcoming Committee and how you can help, see WP:WC, WP:Wc, WT:WC and WP:WELCOME. (At least I'm not looking for personal gain!)
::In closing, let me quote[[Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 12#Welcome bot]|]: "... I think this is a bad idea. I believe it's like 5% or less of the users who actually create an account actually stay, so it would be a resource hog to continuously make new user talk pages." Which is a grim statistic, if true... and highlights the fact that a more diligent effort on all our parts could significantly raise that from five percent to four or five times as much -- assuming those are the one's who try but give up with the lack of support, clues as to how to go on, and without a human contact or three to encourage them and field the odd question. It makes me suspect we need a more formal committee with a co-ordinator to prod us a bit, and some kind of measures like this BOT-outside-the-box, or a schedule, etc. Most of the editors I observe that 'Die out and fade away' do so after two or three weeks of occasional edits. Hence I would conjecture, the critical timing is more in the 10-14 day window. Surely we can all do something more to close that gap! Best Regards! // FrankB 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End around-a compromise scheme